

Copyright 


CJOJEfRIGHT BSPOSUi 


J 







































« 






# 


































































































































































































- 

■ 






























# 


















































































































































STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW 

EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

Volume XCIII] [Number 1 

Whole Number 210 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL 
OF 1867 


BY 

JOSEPH H. PARK, Ph.D. 



Nftu Uork 

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., AGENTS 
London : P. S. King & Son, Ltd. 
1920 




Columbia: ISttiucrBtfcj 
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 


Nicholas Murray Butler, LL.D., President. Munroe Smith, LL.D., Professor 
of Roman Law. E. R. A. Seligman, LL.D., Professor of Political Economy. J. B. 
Moore, LL.D., Professor of International Law. W. A. Dunning, LL.D., Professor of 
History. F. H. Giddings, LL.D., Professor of Sociology. J. B. Clark, LL.D., Professor 
of Political Economy. H. R. Seager, Ph.D., Professor of Political Economy. H. L. 
Moore, Ph. D., Professor of Political Economy. F. J. E. Woodbridge, LL.D., Dean. 
W. R. Shepherd, Ph.D., Professor of History. J. T. Shotwell, Ph.D., Professor of 
History. V. G. Simkhovitch, Ph.D., Professor of Economic History. H. Johnson. 
A. M., Professor of History. S. McC. Lindsay, LL.D., Professor of Social Legislation, 
W. D. Guthrie, A.M., Professor of Constitutional Law. C. J. H. Hayes, Ph.D., Pro. 
fessor of History. A. A. Tenney, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Sociology. R. L- 
Schuyler, Ph.D., Associate Professor of History. R. E. Chaddock, Ph.D., Associate 
Professor of Statistics. W. W. Rockwell, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Church His¬ 
tory in Union Theological Seminary. D. S. Muzzey, Ph.D., Professor of History. 
T. R. Powell, Ph.D., Professor of Constitutional Law. H. L. McBain, Ph.D., 
Professor of Municipal Science. B. B. Kendrick, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of His¬ 
tory. C. D. Hazen, Ph.D., Professor of History. W. F. Ogburn, Ph. D., Professor 
of Sociology. F. J. Foakes Jackson, D. D., Professor of Christian Institutions in Union 
Theological Seminary. 


SCHEME OF INSTRUCTION 

Courses are offered under the following departments: (i) History, (2) Public Law 
and Comparative Jurisprudence, (3) Economics, (4) Social Science. 

The Faculty does not aim to offer courses that cover comprehensively all of the sub- 
jects that are included within the fields of its interests. 

GENERAL COURSES 

General courses involve on the part of the student work outside of the classroom ; 
but no such course involves extensive investigation to be presented in essay or other form. 

History, twenty-one general courses. Public Law and Comparative Jurisprudence, 
twelve general courses. Economics, thirteen general courses. Social Science, seven 
general courses. 

RESEARCH COURSES 

Research courses vary widely in method and content; but every such course involves 
on the part of the student extensive work outside the classroom. 

History, thirteen research courses. Public Law and Comparative Jurisprudence, 
eight research courses. Economics, ten research courses. Social Science, ten research 
courses. 


The degrees of A.M. and Ph.D. are given to students who fulfill the requirements pre¬ 
scribed. (For particulars, see Columbia University Bulletins of Information, Faculty of 
Political Science.) Any person not a candidate for a degree may attend any of the courses 
at any time by payment of a proportional fee. Ten or more Cutting fellowships of $1000 
each or more, four University fellowships of $650 each, two or three Gilder fellow¬ 
ships of $650—$800 each, the Schiff fellowship of $600, the Curtis fellowship of #600, 
the Garth fellowship of #650 an d a number of University scholarships of $150 each are 
awarded to applicants who give evidence of special fitness to pursue advanced studies. 
Several prizes of from #50 to #250 are awarded. The library contains over 700,000 
volumes and students have access to other great collections in the city. 





(T) 




1 

THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 
































/ 

STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW 

EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 
OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

Volume XCIII] [Number 1 

Whole Number 210 


THE ENGLISH REFORM 
BILL OF 1867 




JOSEPH H. PARK, Ph.D. 

Instructor in History at New York University 



TXm Dork 

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., AGENTS 
London : P. S. King & Son, Ltd. 
1920 


Co^A ft 






I %6>7 

.~P«2, 

tf- 2*- 


COPYRIGHT, 1920 
BY 

JOSEPH H. PARK 




©CI.A605534 \ 


MY UNCLE 


J. C. WILLEVER 






































































« 




PREFACE 


There is no more important event connected with the 
story of the development of democracy in England than 
the passage of the Representation of the People Act of 
1867. It is not unfitting, therefore, that attention should 
be paid to the circumstances under which the measure was 
carried. 

The present study is an attempt not only to tell the his¬ 
tory of great party leaders and political cliques of the period 
but also to calculate the extent to which England reacted to 
the esprit du siecle after the triumph of the democratic 
cause in the American Civil War and more especially to 
trace the influence of the political agitation of those social 
classes not within “ the pale of the Constitution ” during a 
season of stress. A recital of facts proving that the urban 
working class was advancing in knowledge does not of 
itself explain why the working class was admitted to a 
share of England’s government, else the arguments brought 
forward by the friends of Reform in 1866 would have 
accomplished the passage of the bill of that year. Nor yet 
was it mob violence in 1866-1867 which was effective, for 
the lower classes displayed more violence in 1832 and dur¬ 
ing the Chartist movement than in the ’sixties and did not 
attain success. But as in 1828 O’Connell, by displaying 
through his remarkable control of the Catholic Associa¬ 
tions that he had power over those capable of immoderate 
action, caused a worried Parliament to legislate, so in 1866- 
1867 middle-class leaders of workingmen, cooperating with 
organizations such as the Reform League and the trade 
unions, obtained results by stating that their well-planned 
parades and quietly-conducted Reform meetings were but 
7] 7 


8 


PREFACE 


[8 

“ dress rehearsals ” for more dramatic scenes in case de¬ 
mands were not granted. Political leaders, recognizing that 
action must be taken by one party or the other, bid for 
popular support. England started on the road to democracy 
although that road was not to broaden out to Mr. Lowe’s 
dreaded “ wide plain ” until other measures, notably among 
them the acts of 1884-1885 and 1918, had been passed. 

Acknowledgment is made by the author of a very free 
use of certain secondary works although material for the 
survey is based in the main upon newspapers, magazines, 
and pamphlets. Frequent notation will show the service to 
which Lord Morley’s Life of Gladstone, Mr. G. M. Trevel¬ 
yan’s Life of John Bright, and the excellent biography of 
Disraeli by Monypenny and Buckle have been put. Statis¬ 
tics concerning the electoral system in Mr. Charles Sey¬ 
mour’s Electoral Reform in England and Wales have been 
regarded as authoritative. The work of writers in the 
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society has proved very 
helpful indeed. And much inspiration has come from Mr. 
J. Holland Rose’s The Rise of Democracy, Mr. Gilbert 
Slater’s The Making of Modern England, and Mr. Pres¬ 
ton Slosson’s The Decline of the Chartist Movement . 

The writer wishes to acknowledge the kind interest of 
Professor James T. Shotwell under whose general super¬ 
vision this monograph was started. He is indebted to Pro¬ 
fessor Carlton J. H. Hayes for whose encouragement, ad¬ 
vice, and criticism he is deeply grateful. And he is under 
obligation to Professor Robert L. Schuyler for criticizing 
the manuscript and to Professor Edwin R. A. Seligman 
for the use of pamphlets in his private library. Mr. Clin¬ 
ton Mindil of New York University and Miss Isabel Mc¬ 
Kenzie have given helpful suggestions. It seems fair to 
state that this thesis was practically finished when the 
writer was called into military service on March 5, 1918, 
and was therefore obliged to defer its publication. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Preface . 7 

CHAPTER I 
Introduction 

The place of the Reform bill of 1832 in English history. 13 

The defects of the bill in the provisions concerning redistribution. 13 

Increase of anomalies after 1832. 14 

The defects of the bill in the enfranchising clauses. 17 

Character of the measures passed by Parliament after 1832 .... 18 

Protests against the existing system by the Chartists. ..... 22 

Diminution of agitation during the prosperous years succeeding 

1848. 23 

Activity of the official class in Reform in the period of prosperity. 25 
Effects of events abroad on English democratic development ... 29 

In France. 29 

In Germany. 31 

In Italy. 33 

In America. 38 

CHAPTER II 

The Condition of the Working Class in the ’Sixties 

The relation between economic pressure and political agitation . . 51 

Favorable conditions of the early 'sixties. . .. 51 

Encouraging reports of 1865. .... 52 

Exceptions to general prosperity. 53 

Contrast presented by 1866 and 1867 to preceding years. 57 

The poor harvests. • • * *.. 57 

Financial failures. 58 

Effect, of the panic upon 1866 and 1867 . 60 

Condition of the leading trades. 63 

Influence of other troublesome events. 64 

The statistician’s data relative to conditions of the working class . 65 

9 ] 9 























10 


CONTENTS 


[IO 

PAGE 

On prices, retail and wholesale. 66 

On wages. 7 ° 

On unemployment. 74 

Current opinions upon the economic situation in 1866 and 1867 . . 78 

Clamor for Reform in the period of stress.. 80 

CHAPTER III 

The Popular Attitude Toward Reform 

Little demand for Reform in the early 'sixties. 87 

Purpose of Reform meetings held before the election of 1865 ... 89 

The formation of the Reform League. 89 

The election of 1865 favorable to Palmerston.91 

Formation of the Russell-Gladstone ministry. 92 

Insufficient popular interest in Reform during latter half of 1865 

and first half of 1866 to effect Parliament. 93 

No economic pressure to cause political agitation. 99 

Increasing agitation during the latter half of 1866.100 

Influence of Lowe’s speeches.100 

The Hyde Park incident. .102 

Increasing influence of the Reform League.105 

The great demonstrations during the autumn of 1866.106 

Trade unions an important factor in agitation.114 

Evidence of great interest in the Reform question by the beginning 

of 1867.117 

Influence of agitators upon the terms of the Reform bill.123 

Anticipated results of Parliamentary Reform.130 

Partial abolition of class government. 131 

Solution of pressing social questions.131 

Relief from economic pressure.132 

Summary.133 

CHAPTER IV 

The Official Attitude Toward Reform 

Indifference of both parties to Reform in the early 'sixties .... 135 

Hope of Reformers in the Russell-Gladstone ministry.136 

Attitude of Gladstone toward the Reform question.137 

Indifference of the conservative element in the Liberal party . . . 138 

Interest of the radical element in Reform.138 

Introduction of a franchise bill in March, 1866.139 

Attitude of the House toward the measure.144 






























r 


* 

*0 


Ar 


11 ] CONTENTS H 

PAGE 

The Adullamites. 147 

Debates on the second reading.148 

A redistribution bill added.153 

The bill in committee.158 

Defeat of the Government on the basis of the borough franchise 

qualification.159 

Opposition of Parliament to Reform apparent .160 

Arguments against the bill itself.160 

Arguments against the existing Government dealing with the ques¬ 
tion .164 

Arguments against democratic tendencies.164 

Refutations of the Government’s arguments.172 

Defensive attitude of the Liberals.172 


Belief of the working class in the hostility of Parliament to change 184 

CHAPTER V 


Disraeli’s Success with Reform in 1867 

Resignation of the Russell-Gladstone ministry, June, 1866 .... 185 

Formation of the Derby-Disraeli ministry . . .187 

The indifference of the new ministry toward Reform. ..189 

Their opinions on the subject changed by popular activity .... 190 

Reform brought before Parliament by resolutions.192 

The Ten-Minutes “bill”.193 

Resignations from the cabinet.199 

Introduction of a more extensive measure.200 

Attitude of Gladstone and Bright toward the new measure .... 201 

Conciliatory speech by Disraeli.203 

Tea-room schism of Liberal members.206 

The bill in committee.207 

Amendment practically conceding household suffrage in boroughs 

adopted. .210 

Numbers admitted by amendment and by bill.211 

Redistribution.213 

Novel amendments proposed during the passage of the bill .... 214 

The bill in the House of Lords.219 

Discussion of the authorship of the Act of 1867.221 

The influence of Gladstone.221 

The influence of Bright .225 

The influence of Disraeli.227 

The influence of popular opinion.232 

Disraeli's motive in guiding the bill through Parliament.234 

Disraeli's policy supported by the Conservative party.244 
































12 


CONTENTS 


[12 

PAGE 

CHAPTER VI 
Conclusion 

The effect of Disraeli's success with Reform upon the fortunes of 

his party.246 

The impossibility of calculating the influence of Disraeli's policy 

immediately because of the Irish question.247 

The election of 1868 favorable to the Liberals.252 

Success of Disraeli's move of 1867 apparent at a later period . . . 254 
Effect of the second Reform Act upon the position of the working¬ 
men in the state.257 

Problems to democratic advance after 1867.258 

Reform measures for Scotland and Ireland.258 

Change in the registration system.260 

The problem of corrupt practices.262 

The further extension of the suffrage in the counties.264 

The need of redistribution .... .265 

Comparatively little attention given to the working class immedi¬ 
ately after 1867.268 

Passage of factory legislation .... 269 

The Education Bill of 1870 ..271 

Legislation on trade unions.272 

Formation of the Labor party.274 

The socialization of politics in the twentieth century.275 

Bibliography .276 

Index. 283 




















CHAPTER I 


Introduction 

The Reform bill of 1832 1 —the Great Reform bill—has 
merited much attention and praise, especially from those 
students who have desired to trace the rise of democracy 
in England. But, as is well known, the measure is not the 
one which made England democratic, and was not without 
its defects: both in the provisions concerning redistribution 
and in those pertaining to the enlargement of the franchise 
it was open to the attacks of the Radicals and of the work¬ 
ing class. 

Although some of the grossest anomalies of the period 
preceding 1832 were removed by its redistribution clauses, 
there had been no pretence of adopting the principle of 
equal electoral districts. Many of the smaller boroughs 
still were given the same political influence as the larger 
ones. And, because of the great influence of property, not 
a few of them fell under the power of the property-owning 
class to such an extent that they approached the character 
of those boroughs in which direct nomination had formerly 
prevailed. 2 Indeed, a list of over forty was made out with 
the name of the patron of each. 3 Moreover, the transfer 
of part of the representation of those boroughs which had 

1 2 and 3 William IV, c. 45, 65, 88 (including the measures for Scot¬ 
land and Ireland). 

* Vide the speech of Lord John Russell, Annual Register, vol. xciv, p. 18. 

8 G. Lowes Dickinson, The Development of Parliament during the 
Nineteenth Century (London, 1895), chap ii, gives a long description 
of anomalies of distribution after 1832. 

13] 


13 


14 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[14 

been disfranchised, to the counties where the influence of 
the landlord was predominant, gave power to property and 
was displeasing to the Radicals. 1 

And the anomalies which were bad enough in the ’thirties 
became greater and greater as the years went by and the 
Industrial Revolution wrought its changes. Those cities 
which grew very rapidly during the thirty years following 
1832 retained the old number of representatives in Par¬ 
liament—as did also those towns and districts which showed 
little increase in population and wealth. Statistics depict 
an England becoming half again as populous during this 
period; they tell of the increasing crowds of the cities—of 
the number of persons engaged in manufactures mounting 
during the twenty years between 1841 and 1861 from 
1,789,000 to 3,117,000, in commerce from 499,000 to 
1,110,000, in mines from 210,000 to 425,000, in building 
from 353,000 to 539,000; they tell, on the other hand, of a 
relative decline in agriculture wherein the recorded increase 
of persons engaged is only from 1,297,000 to i,700,ooo. 2 
The industrial map of England was showing great changes; 
many a Silas Marner found that factories had taken the 
place of the familiar Lantern Yard. If the new situation 
were not met by a new redistribution bill, the anomalies of 
the later nineteenth century would be as great as they had 
been at the beginning of that century. It is not surprising, 
therefore, to find the pamphleteers and the magazine writ¬ 
ers discussing the subject. The Westminster Review de¬ 
clared in 1865 that it was impossible upon any rational 
principle to contend that Honiton with a population of 
3300 ought to have—as it then had—as many members as 
Liverpool or Glasgow with half a million of people and in- 

1 J. H. Rose, The Rise of Democracy (London, 1897), p. 49. 

2 M. G. Mulhall, The Dictionary of Statistics (London, 1899), pp. 
420 and 421. 


INTRODUCTION 


15 ] 


15 


calculable wealth of commerce. 1 In Macmillan's it was 
said that a majority of the House of Commons consisting 
of 328 members, all of whom (except 11) represented bor¬ 
ough constituencies of the smaller class in England (in¬ 
cluding Wales) and Scotland, was returned by 250,291 
electors, or about one-fifth of the whole electoral body; 
while about the same number of electors (244,459) in the 
larger boroughs returned only thirty-six members or about 
one-eighteenth of the whole House; 2 in the Fortnightly 
Review it was asserted that such an unequal and anomalous 
system of representation as was then existing in England, 
if proposed to a new community by any statesman, would 
be considered absurd. 3 To the writer in the latter mag¬ 
azine the fact was startling that Rutland with 1,772 elec¬ 
tors on the roll should return as many members as the 
West Riding of Yorkshire, with 40,476, and that the little 
town of Knaresborough with 271, and Thetford with 223 
electors, should be as largely represented as the great cities 
of Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, with constit¬ 
uencies of from 15,000 to 22,000. The result of the whole 
system was that one-third of the constituents sent two- 
thirds of the Parliamentary representatives for all Great 
Britain and Ireland, and what great practical good—it was 
asked—could spring from a system so theoretically unjust! 
Indeed, a person of a mathematical turn of mind may show 
anomalies at will from the nicely constructed tables of the 
pamphleteers; 4 and he may find some foundation for their 
statements that when the enormous increase of population 
and the still greater increase in the value of property were 


1 Westminster Review, April, 1865, p. 512. 

2 Macmillan’s, January, 1866, p. 260, article by Lord Hobart. 

8 Fortnightly Review, vol. iv, p. 430, article by Edward Wilson. 

4 Vide, for instance, The Reform Problem by “ Political Euclid,” 
(London, 1866). 


!6 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [16 

taken into consideration, the anomalies of the existing sys¬ 
tem of representation were almost as great as those that 
existed prior to 1832. 1 That Parliament was well aware 
of the main facts of the case may be seen from an extract 
from Mr. Laing’s speech before the House of Commons 
given shortly after the introduction of the 1866 Reform 
bill: 

He found a number of boroughs—forty—in which the popula¬ 
tion was under 7,000; the number of electors averaging 400 in 
each; those forty boroughs, therefore, with a united population 
of 200,000, and an aggregate number of voters of 16,000, re¬ 
turned sixty-four Members to that House. Contrast that with 
the single county of Lanarkshire, with a population of 530,000 
by the last census—more than that of the whole forty boroughs 
united—and returning only one Member to Parliament . . . 
Dundee, the capital of a staple branch of industry with a 
population approaching 100,000, had a single Member—exactly 
one-sixty-fourth of the representation enjoyed by the forty 
small boroughs, whose united population only doubled that of 
Dundee. Glasgow, again, with a population of about half a 
million, and more than 20,000 electors, only returned two repre¬ 
sentatives as against the sixty-four returned by these small 
boroughs. But the case for redistribution became even 
stronger if the table of boroughs was examined with an eye to 
the increase or diminution which had taken place in the popu¬ 
lation of the large towns and small boroughs since 1832. In 
eighteen boroughs, returning twenty-three Members, the popu¬ 
lation had actually diminished since that date, whilst in the 
eleven largest manufacturing towns in the North, the number 
of £10 householders in the same period had increased by 178 
per cent. The contrast was not merely remarkable as regarded 
the population relatively to the Members; but while, on the one 
side, they had a set of small boroughs stationary or declining 


'Ibid., p. 5. 


INTRODUCTION 


17 ] 


I? 


in population, on the other they had a number of large towns 
rising rapidly into importance, with electors in each of those 
towns increasing more rapidly than the electors in all the small 
boroughs put together; and yet they commanded no adequate 
proportion of the representation. 1 


But justly complained of as were those defects, already 
mentioned, of the great Reform bill, a much greater cause 
for complaint was found in its enfranchising clauses. Be¬ 
fore 1832 the landed and commercial classes had been the 
rulers of England. Both the manufacturing class and the 
working class expressed, during the years immediately pre¬ 
ceding the passage of the bill, their opposition to the ex¬ 
isting situation. Francis Place, a Radical, who had secured 
partial liberty for trade unions in 1824, became influential 
in the formation of a National Political Union (October, 
1831), designed to give cohesion to the provincial bodies 
which were interested in Reform, and to unite the middle 
and laboring classes in common political action. 2 His activ¬ 
ity and the agitation of the working class were important 
factors in causing the bill to be passed. 3 But the measure 
gave the franchise to only those occupiers of premises of 
the clear yearly value of not less than £10 in the boroughs 
and those copyholders and leaseholders of land worth £10 a 
year, and tenants-at-will of lands worth £50 a year in the 
counties. 4 Such provisions meant that the industrial middle 
class was to be added to the rulers of the country and that 
the working class had been given nothing. To the latter it 
soon became patent that Lord John Russell, important leader 

1 Hansard, third series, vol. clxxxii (March 12, 1866)-, pp. 78 and 79. 

* Rose, op. cit., pp. 46 and 47. 

* Cf. Gilbert Slater, The Making of Modern England, new revised 
edition (Boston, 1915), PP- 94“97- 

4 In boroughs resident freemen created before 1831 kept their vote 
and in the counties the forty-shilling freehold qualification was retained. 


lS THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [18 

of the Whigs, did not intend to have any further extension 
of the franchise after the passage of the Reform bill and that 
both those Parliamentary leaders who' had supported and 
those who had opposed the measure were alike determined 
to go no further, but to use their best endeavors “ to pre¬ 
serve the renovated constitution, entire and unimpaired/’ 1 
There had been ushered in the Victorian compromise, de¬ 
scribed by Chesterton as “ the decision of the middle classes 
to employ their new wealth in backing up a sort of aris- 
tocratical compromise, and not . . . insisting on a clean 
sweep and a clear democratic programme.” 2 Doomed to 
disappointment, therefore, was any hope of betterment of 
social conditions through the exercise of the franchise that 
the working class and the Radical Reformers and Radical 
Clubs had in mind when they demanded universal suffrage, 
vote by ballot, short Parliaments, and the abolition of the 
property qualification for members of Parliament. The 
House of Commons was still to remain the “ comfortable 
rich man’s club,” 3 caring too much for the interests it 
represented. 

Hence it happened that any alliance between the Whigs, 
the Radicals and the working classes could not be formed 
permanently when the latter two groups saw the Whigs 
play the part of Tories. 4 Whig ministries found it expe¬ 
dient to do nothing to protect trade-union organizations or 
cooperative societies. “ Taxes on knowledge ” were al¬ 
lowed to continue, an obstacle to efforts on the part of the 
workingman to gain opportunities for social, mental and 

1 Speech of Lord John Russell, Hansard, third series, vol. xiii, p. 462. 

2 G. K. Chesterton, The Victorian Age in Literature (London, 1913), 
p. 30. 

s So called by Westminster Review, January, 1867, p. 185. 

4 Rose, op. cit., pp. 61 and 62. 


INTRODUCTION 


19 ] 


19 


moral improvement. The “ Moral-force ” Chartists might 
well protest. 

It can be pointed out, of course, that something was done 
for the working class. The famous Factory Act of 1833 1 
—in the opinion of a section of England's representatives, 
the factory owners as typified by John Bright, “ one of the 
worst measures ever passed in the shape of an Act of the 
legislature ”—was put through by the aid of Tories deeply 
moved by the existing conditions in the factories and not 
unmindful of an opportunity to injure the interests of the 
manufacturing capitalists. 2 The Tory Lord Ashley suc¬ 
ceeded in carrying the Mines and Collieries Act 3 of 1842 
by which some of the evils connected with the employment 
of women and children in mines were remedied. The same 
reformer was able to carry an act in 1844 4 which bettered 
the condition of young persons and women in factories, and 
in 1847 Ten Hours Act 6 (not, however, through any 
aid rendered by John Bright and the Radicals). Moreover, 
the factory acts were extended during the years 1845 to 
1861 to industries allied to textiles, and during the 'sixties 
to non-textile factories and workshops. 6 But, in contrast 
to the little done, there was much more left undone. The 
Fortnightly Review declaimed against this lack of legisla¬ 
tion on important topics: 


*3 and 4 William IV, c. 103. 

* George C. Brodrick and J. K. Fotheringham in The Political History 
of England (edited by William Hunt and R. L. Poole), vol. xi, p. 327,. 
and Arnold Toynbee, Lectures on the Industrial Revolution, third im¬ 
pression (London, 1913), pp. 231 and 232. 

3 5 and 6 Viet., c. 99. 

4 7 and 8 Viet., c. 15. 

5 10 and 11 Viet., c. 29. 

6 B. L Hutchins and A. Harrison, A History of Factory Legislation , 
second edition revised (Lcndon, 1911), chap, vii and viii. 


20 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[20 

The doctrine of laisser faire in such matters may be philoso¬ 
phical, but it may also be the result of cowardice, selfishness, 
and stupidity; and there is an amusing inconsistency in the 
manner in which men will tell you almost in the same breath 
that Parliament can do little or nothing for the welfare of the 
masses of the people, and then quote some recent Act as indi¬ 
cative of the profound consideration of the same Parliament 
for their welfare. 1 

Much, too, which was done was regarded as having been 
done for self-interest. The new Poor Law of 1834, 2 op¬ 
posed by Cobbett and Disraeli, who believed it bore “ fear¬ 
ful tidings for the poor/’ 3 cut down the rates for the prop¬ 
erty owner; it did little for the destitute who had not been 
trained to care for themselves, and when the measure was 
vigorously enforced by the commissioners with little dis¬ 
position to allow any temporary relaxation of the system, 
and during a time of poor harvests, the suffering was great, 
and the cry arose: “ Let us end the power of the Whigs. 
Vote for the Tories in preference to the Whigs, the authors 
of the accursed Poor law.” 4 The exclusion of all council¬ 
lors who did not possess a certain amount of real or per¬ 
sonal property, from the elective town councils had caused 
the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 5 to appear as an¬ 
other middle-class measure. 6 And again, later—in 1846—a 
section of the Whigs was anxious to have the corn laws re¬ 
pealed, influenced greatly, doubtless, by the existing distress 
and by the chance, perhaps, to injure land-owners (many of 

1 Fortnightly Review, vol. iv, p. 425. 

J 4 and 5 William IV, c. 76. 

3 William F. Monypenny, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, 4 vols. (New 
York, 1910-16), vol. i, p. 374. 

4 Rose, op. cit., p. 61, citing an election speech of 1841 at Leicester. 

*5 and 6 William IV, c. 76. 

•Rose, op. cit., p. 61. 


INTRODUCTION 


21 


21 ] 

whom were Tories), and also touched by the thought of 
cheap bread and low wages. Thomas Cooper, in The Life, 
Written by Himself, gives a speech of a Chartist leader in 
which the hearers are earnestly exhorted not to be led away 
from their adherence to the People’s Charter by the corn- 
law repealers; not that the corn-law repeal was wrong but 

when we get the charter, we will repeal the Corn Laws and all 
other bad laws. But if you give up your agitation for the 
Charter to help the Free Traders, they will not help you to get 
the Charter. Do not be deceived by the middle classes again. 
You helped them to get their votes—you swelled their cry of 
“ The bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill! ” But where 
are the fine promises they made you? Gone to the winds! 
They said when they had gotten their votes, they would help 
you to get yours. But they and the rotten Whigs have never 
remembered you. Municipal Reform has been for their bene¬ 
fit—not yours. All other reforms the Whigs boast to have ef¬ 
fected have been for the benefit of the middle classes—not 
yours. And now they want to get the Corn Law repealed— 
not for your benefit—but for their own. “ Cheap Bread,” they 
cry. But they mean “ Low Wages.” Do not listen to their 
cant and humbug. Stick to your charter. You are veritable 
slaves without your votes. 1 

There were members of Parliament who wished the work 
of reform to go on. In this connection the proposals of the 
year 1837 are often mentioned. 2 Hume, 8 for instance, 
stood for household suffrage, Tennyson, 4 for the repeal of 
the Septennial Act, Molesworth, 5 for reform of the upper 

l Life of Thomas Cooper (London, 1872), pp. 136 and 137. 

* Vide , for instance, Brodrick and Fotheringham, op. cit., vol. xi, p. 
374 

3 Joseph Hume (1777-1855) voted early as a Tory but later became a 
Radical and carried the repeal of the combination laws. 

4 Charles Tennyson (1784-1861), Liberal. 

6 Sir William Molesworth (1810-1855), “ Radical” and friend of 
J. S. Mill. 


22 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[22 

House, but such proposals made up no part of the Whig 
program. Lord John Russell, indeed, opposed the amend¬ 
ment to the address in answer to the Queen’s speech in 1837 
which demanded an extension of the suffrage, on the ground 
that the reopening of the question would destroy the sta¬ 
bility of institutions! 1 

And, in the meantime, the protest against the existing 
order of things became stronger as the distress grew. The 
poor harvests of the late ’thirties, the enforcement of the 
new Poor Law when com was rising to an average of more 
than sixty shillings per quarter, the suffering due to the 
supersession of manual labor by machinery and the dis¬ 
placement of agriculture and rural industry by manufac¬ 
tures, did not make the protests less vociferous. The polit¬ 
ically active working class agitated for the six demands of 
the People’s Charter: manhood suffrage, equal electoral 
districts, annual Parliaments, abolition of the property quali¬ 
fication for members of the House of Commons, vote by 
ballot, and salaries for members of Parliament. By the 
Charter they intended to obtain what they had not secured 
from the Reform bill of 1832: namely, control of the gov¬ 
ernment to procure for themselves betterment of their 
social and economic position. Their agitation played an 
important part in the history of England for over ten 
years, especially during the lean years, but in the end did 
not attain its immediate objects. For various reasons the 
Chartist movement began to die out after 1848: 2 the fail¬ 
ure of a great petition may have caused an unfavorable re- 

1 Hansard, vol. xxxix, p. 70. 

J W. Nassau Molesworth, “History of the Reform Question from 
1832 to 1866,” Fortnightly Review , vol. vii, pp. 733 and 734, mentions: 
(1) failure of the monster petition; (2) failure of O’Connor’s land 
scheme; (3) repeal of corn laws and success with free trade; (4) Poor 
Law beneficial by this time; (5) spread and success of the co-operative 
movement. 


INTRODUCTION 


23 ] 


23 


action; the leadership was defective; the middle class never 
came to be connected intimately with the movement; and— 
perhaps most important of all—the betterment of economic 
conditions brought on a period often designated as a period 
of torpor. 1 

For, in the ’fifties, the prosperity in trade tended to con¬ 
tract the area of misery and unemployment. 2 In the fifteen 
years from 1850 to 1865 imports nearly trebled and ex¬ 
ports more than doubled. During this period, although 
prices were rising, nominal wages were rising faster, with 
the result that there was a considerable increase in real 
wages. 3 Stimulus was given to industry by the discovery 
of gold in California in 1848 and in Australia in 1850 and 
1851—as the writers of the economic history of the period 
point out—and although financial crises brought ruin to 
many, favorable forces overbalanced the destructive influ¬ 
ences. 4 Railways were opening up districts hitherto inac¬ 
cessible—hence came a fresh stimulus to manufacturers— 
more capital was forthcoming and more railways were 
built. 5 Emigration to Australia and New Zealand multi¬ 
plied the number of customers abroad. Great quantities of 
manufactures went to pay for the influx of gold with a 
consequent impulse to the shipbuilding trade. Agriculture, 
too, was thriving. 6 The result of the general prosperity 

1 Preston W. Slosson, in The Decline of the Chartist Movement 
(New York, 1916), chap, iv, gives a good discussion of the causes of 
the decline of the Chartist movement and stresses the influence of 
economic factors. 

J H. D. Traill, Social England, 6 vols. (London, 1897), vol. vi, p. 423. 

*G. R. Porter, The Progress of the Nation, revised by F. W. Hirst 
(London, 1912), p. 56. 

‘Traill, op. cit., p. 433. 

6 A. L. Bowley, A Short Account of England’s Foreign Trade in the 
Nineteenth Century, revised edition (London, 1905), pp. 58 et seq. 

•The London Times , Dec. 31, 1859, speaks of this as a period of an 
unprecedented duration of agricultural prosperity. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


24 


[24 


was such an increased demand for labor that the Times 
could declare in 1859: 


It may be doubted whether greater accumulations of wealth 
have ever taken place in a period of ten years in any age or 
country, and for the first time within recent experience the re¬ 
ward of labor has increased even more largely than the profits 
of capital. ... In every department of skilled industry able 
workmen find it in their power to command almost any price 
for their services. 1 


And with the coming of prosperity, “ the six points had 
almost passed out of the range of practical politics and 
only provoked a good-humored smile.” 2 

The whole period under discussion, so- far as the attitude 
of the working class toward the franchise question is con¬ 
cerned, is to be found in summary in the Edinburgh Re¬ 
view: 


As regards the classes which are not within the limits of the 
franchise, a very great change has been operated in the course 
of the five-and-thirty years of which we have been speaking. 
The first part of that period was occupied in the abortive Chart¬ 
ist agitation. It was a period of great commercial depression 
and manufacturing distress; labor was cheap, employment pre¬ 
carious, wages low. It seemed to be a problem how the in¬ 
creasing masses in our manufacturing towns were to be fed or 
housed, and whether the means of subsistence could be made 
to keep pace with the ratio at which the population was in¬ 
creasing. Since then, time has solved all these problems—the 
discovery of the gold fields of California and Australia, the ab¬ 
sorption caused by the Crimean war, and latterly, the enormous 
increase of our commerce and manufactures, resulting from 
our successful commercial policy, have changed the whole com- 

1 Ibid. 

* Sir ,Spencer Walpole, The History of Twenty-five Years, 4 vols. 
(London, 1904-08), vol. i, p. 65. 


INTRODUCTION 


25 ] 


2 5 


plexion of our laboring classes. Penury has given way to 
plenty; idleness to employment; disaffection to content. . . . 
The good which they (the workingmen) expected to result 
from the six points of the Charter has descended upon them 
from an unexpected quarter. Although the feeling among 
them in regard to their admission to the franchise is genuine 
and strong, it is altogether different, not in degree only but in 
kind, from that which animated the Chartist agitators in 1848. 1 


During this period of torpor, however, the official class 
had seen fit to take up again the question of Parliamentary 
Reform. It was suggested here and there 2 that the Re¬ 
form question was reopened by Lord John Russell because 
his Government was declining in popularity and power and 
needed such support as would probably come from those 
newly enfranchised under Liberal auspices. According to 
this interpretation, the agitation on the subject resulted 
from the activities of political leaders. It must not be sup¬ 
posed, however, that outside interest in Reform was en¬ 
tirely lacking: large and important meetings held early in 
1852 at Manchester, Sheffield, Westminster and elsewhere, 
indicate that this was a question which still belonged among 
the great political questions of the day. 3 The Queen’s 
speech of 1852, in which appeared the following words, 
showed that at least some consideration was actuating the 
Government: 


It appears to me that this is a fitting time for calmly considering 
whether it may not be advisable to make such amendments in 
the Act of the late reign relating to the representation of the 
Commons in Parliament as may be deemed calculated to carry 

1 Edinburgh Review , vol. cxxiii, p. 283. 

5 Vide the Times, December 31, 1859, editorial, “A Review of the 
Decade.” 

* Molesworth, op. cit., pp. 734 et seq. 


26 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [26 

into more complete effect the principles on which the law is 
founded. 1 

And on the seventh of February Lord John Russell moved 
for leave to bring in a bill to extend the right of voting for 
members of Parliament. He proposed to lower the qualifi¬ 
cations for the franchise in both county and borough, to 
raise the constituency of the small boroughs by adding 
neighboring places, to abolish the property qualifications of 
members, etc. But the bill was shortly afterwards with¬ 
drawn when the Government was defeated on a Militia bill. 

Lord Aberdeen, the head of a coalition ministry of Whigs 
and Peelites, assisted by Lord John Russell as leader in the 
House of Commons, came into power within a year’s time. 
It was announced that the Reform question would receive 
serious consideration. Meetings were held in Manchester 
and elsewhere to stir up interest in the subject. The bill 
which Russell brought forward in February, 1854, pro¬ 
posed the disfranchisement of several boroughs which to¬ 
gether had twenty-nine members, the reduction to one 
representative of thirty-three of the smaller boroughs and 
the apportionment of the sixty-two seats to more populous 
places. Franchise qualifications were to be reduced and a 
whole series of new and fantastic methods for the enfran¬ 
chisement of particular sections of the people was devised. 2 
But this measure, too, had to be withdrawn when the minds 
of the members of the House and of the public in general 
were taken up with the Crimean War. At the close of the 
war the popularity of Palmerston, who had become head of 
the Government and was opposed to Reform in England, 
the consequent rejection of some of the more Radical 
Whigs in the election of 1857, and the Indian Mutiny all 

1 Annual Register, vol. xciv (1852), p. 4. 

2 Annual Register , vol. xcvi (1854), pp. 110-120. 


INTRODUCTION 


27] 


27 


tended to injure the prospects of having the question suc¬ 
cessfully taken up at the moment. 

In 1858, however, Palmerston’s popularity began rapidly 
to wane when the Government, influenced by a plot 1 against 
Louis Napoleon, brought in a bill to prevent foreign refu¬ 
gees from abusing the hospitality of the country. A sug¬ 
gestion that the Government was yielding to foreign dic¬ 
tation was enough to cause the rejection of the bill, and 
Lord Derby of the Conservative party was called upon to 
form a new ministry. 2 The Conservatives, perhaps thinking 
that the Liberals for their own interests had been identified 
with the Reform question for too long a period, decided to 
break the monopoly. 3 Acting upon the supposition that a 
bill would be brought forward, agitators led by Bright be¬ 
came very active, hoping to gain large concessions. 

On February 28, 1859, Mr. Disraeli, Chancellor of the 
Exchequer under Derby, brought in his bill. By this it 
was proposed not to alter the limits of the borough fran¬ 
chise but “ to introduce a new kind of franchise, founded 
upon personal property, and to give a vote to persons hav¬ 
ing property to the amount of £10 a year in the Funds, Bank 
Stock, and East India Stock ”; to enfranchise any persons 
having £60 in a savings bank, recipients of pensions of £20 
in the naval, military or civil services, graduates, ministers 
of religion, members of the legal and medical professions, 
etc. The bill was to do away with the distinction between 


*A plot against the French Emperor's life had been planned by for¬ 
eigners in London. The attempt to assassinate him failed but the 
French demanded in dictatorial terms that the English Government 
prevent such plots in future. Cf. Walpole, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 113 et seq. 

* It was in this year that Mr. Locke King's bill for the abolition of 
the property qualifications required of English and Irish members (the 
21 and 22 Viet., c. 26), was carried. 

* But cf. J. H. Murchison, The Conservatives and “Liberals,” Their 
Principles and Policy (London, 1866), p. 45. 


28 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [28 

the county and borough franchise. Some little attention 
was given to redistribution. 1 Lord John Russell and Mr. 
Bright agreed in opposing the measure for the serious 
omission of any important proposal for the working 
class. Mr. Bright, speaking for the Radicals, thought that 
a Government representing a party which had always 
opposed the extension of political power to the people 
ought not to have undertaken to settle the question. In 
addition to the opposition from the Radicals, there was 
the opposition of those Conservatives 2 who did not like a 
measure which made the county and borough qualifications 
the same and the opposition of a large section of the Whigs, 
who stood against Reform on general principles. Hence 
291 voted for and 330 against the second reading, and the 
Government appealed to the country. 

The result of the election was not favorable to the min¬ 
istry, and Lord Palmerston assisted by Lord John Russell 
took office. This Government in turn decided to “ supply 
the omissions and remedy the defects of the Act of 1832.” 
Molesworth remarks that there was little distress, and 
public feeling in favor of their measure was slight: “ The 
nation looked on, not certainly with indifference, but with 
comparative calmness, and regarded the contest as though 
the ascendency of a party, rather than the welfare and 
prosperity of the nation, was involved in the issue.” 3 The 
bill itself provided for a £10 county and a £6 borough occu¬ 
pation franchise, and some little redistribution. 4 But little 
enthusiasm in the Government accorded with little enthu¬ 
siasm in the nation and after the second reading delay fol- 

1 Annual Register, vol. ci (1859), chap. iii. 

’Henley, the President of the Board of Trade, and Walpole, the 
Home Secretary, retired from the Government, dreading “ that identity 
of suffrage which is the principle of the Government Bill.” 

’Molesworth, op. cit., p. 741. 

4 Annual Register, vol. cii (i860), chap iv. 


INTRODUCTION 


2 9 


29 ] 

lowed delay. Finally on the eleventh of June Lord John 
Russell withdrew the bill. Henceforth no Reform bill was 
brought forward by the Government until 1866. 

Before the Liberals and Conservatives were again to 
manoeuver over the Reform question events happening be¬ 
yond England’s shores helped the cause of democracy and 
affected opinion in England itself. It is true that the re¬ 
sults of the turmoil of 1848 on the Continent had not been 
very fruitful for democrats: instead of the republic of a 
Louis Blanc or the government of the middle-class repub¬ 
licans there came the empire of Louis Napoleon in France; 
instead of the reform projected by the Frankfort Assembly 
of 1848 there came a reactionary triumph with the restora¬ 
tion of the 1815 Confederation in Germany; instead of 
unity and democracy there came Austrian restoration in 
Venetia and to the various Italian thrones conservative 
princes and a Pope converted to conservatism. Neverthe¬ 
less democracy still remained an ideal for the workingmen 1 
and to both Sardinia and Prussia had been granted a con¬ 
stitution. 

France had its Napoleon — but Napoleon ruled in the 
name of democracy. He was careful, however, to retain 
for himself control of the ministry, the power of initiating 
legislation, command of the army and navy, together with 
decisions upon questions of peace and war and the power 
of concluding treaties. The Corps legislatif of two hun¬ 
dred and fifty-one members elected by direct manhood suf¬ 
frage was carefully restricted in its powers. As Lecky 
points out, in spite of the fact that Legislative Assemblies 
were elected by universal suffrage, the government was an 
almost absolute despotism during the greater part of the 

Carlton J. H. Hayes, A Political and Social History of Modern 
Europe, 2 vols. (New York, 1917), vol. ii, p. 144- 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


3° 


[30 


reign. 1 Enemies rather than friends to an extended suf¬ 
frage could therefore get inspiration from events across 
the Channel. When John Bright, the great English cham¬ 
pion of Parliamentary Reform, reminded an audience in 
1866 that universal suffrage existed in France, the Satur¬ 
day Review reminded him that “ in France universal suf¬ 
frage produces an assembly of Crown nominees, which has 
no voice on peace or war, on the policy of the country, or 
on the appointment of a single clerk in a public office.” 2 
Blackwood's, a Conservative magazine, declared universal 
suffrage ineffective in France where “ the result obtained 
by the ballot-box no more represented the real opinions and 
wishes of the inhabitants than if they had been marched up 
to the poll under an escort of military and compelled to 
vote, at the point of the bayonet, according to the dictates 
of the French Emperor, whose subjects they have now be¬ 
come.” 3 The pamphleteers of illiberal leanings likewise 
pointed to the failure of universal suffrage as a means 
of giving freedom to the French people. One declared that 
manhood suffrage in France had been consistent with a 
fettered press and trammels on speech and motion. 4 An¬ 
other asked: “ France—is this a freer country than Eng- 


1 William Edward Hartpole Lecky, Democracy and Liberty, 2 vols. 
(New York, 1896), vol. i, p. 38. 

2 Saturday Review, September 1, 1866. Vide the attitude of this 
weekly on April 21, i860, April 28, i860, May 20, 1865, June 24, 1865, 
January 12, 1867, etc. In the number dated February 17, 1866, it 
acknowledges, however, that “ no one can doubt that there is some¬ 
thing both elevating and inspiriting to the masses, both of the American 
and the French people, in the conviction which they feel that their 
Government belongs to them, represents them, embodies their views, 
and expresses their wishes.” 

* Blackwood’s , vol. lxxxviii, p. 107. The quotation is descriptive of 
conditions in Savoy and Nice but succeeding pages of the article show 
that the statement is regarded as true of France as a whole. 

4 Frederic Hill, Parliamentary Reform, How the Representation may 
be Amended (London, 1865), p. 5. 


INTRODUCTION 


31 


3 1 ] 

land? . . . What does the present show us? Her most 
eloquent orators, writers and statesmen silenced, her press 
gagged—neither liberty of knowledge nor utterance, nor 
opinion, nor combination—her parliament packed; her elec¬ 
tions a mockery.” 1 

Moreover, little happened in German affairs between the 
middle of the century and 1865 to rouse the enthusiasm of 
the more liberal of the English. Austria had been given 
over completely to reaction, and in Prussia, Bismarck, firm 
believer in divine-right monarchy, was master. In the 
spring of 1866—when the Reform question was becoming 
important once more in British politics—Bismarck surprised 
the world, however, by advocating a reform of the confed¬ 
eration in such a way that there should be representation of 
the people by universal manhood suffrage. J. H. Rose points 
out that hostility to bureaucratic Austria moved him to make 
Prussia the champion in German affairs of the principle of 
a very slightly restricted suffrage. 2 Hypocrisy was the 
term applied to Bismarck’s action in many quarters. But 
after the victory over Austria in the Seven Weeks’ War 
there was formed the North German Confederation, 3 the 
legislative power of which was vested in a Bundesrath, an 
assembly of deputies from the states, and a Reichstag, 
whose members were elected by equal, secret, direct and 
manhood suffrage. 4 

1 “ L,” Queries on the Franchise, an Examination of “ the Seven 
Reasons” (Norwich, 1866), p. 29. 

* Rose, Rise of Democracy , p. 180, but vide the statement of Heinrich 
von Sybel, Die Begriindung des Deutschen Reiches durch Wilhelm I, 
7 vols. (Miinchen, 1890-94), vol. iv, pp. 317 and 318, that Bismarck, 
believing in the interest of the masses in the maintenance of public 
order, considered universal suffrage a guaranty of conservatism. 

3 The invitation to form such a Confederation had been given June 
16, 1866; the scheme was adopted February 2, 1867. 

4 A contrast to the situation within Prussia where because of the three- 
class system the suffrage was indirect and unequal. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


3* 


[32 


German affairs interested the English public, as articles 
in the London Times testify. But Reform speakers re¬ 
ferred to movements in Germany comparatively seldom. 
John Bright told an audience: 


In Germany a vote is to be given to every man of twenty-five 
years of age and upwards, so that, if we were to propose a 
measure that would give a vote to every man of twenty-five 
years of age and upwards in this country, we should not be in 
advance of that great country of Northern Germany which is 
now being established. What is it that we are now come to in 
this country, that what is being rapidly conceded in all parts of 
the world is being persistently and obstinately refused here in 
England, the home of freedom, the mother of Parliaments? 1 


To this statement the Saturday Review retorted that Mr. 
Bright had dwelt with too much complacency on the “ pro¬ 
miscuous suffrage ” which Count Bismarck had announced 
as the proper basis of election for a German parliament 
and suggested that the eminent German champion of par¬ 
liamentary privilege had probably little thought that he 
would be quoted by Mr. Bright as a pattern Reformer. It 
further warned that when the attributes of the new German 
parliament should be known, and when its relation to the 
Prussian House of Deputies should be defined, it would 
then be “ time enough for the Mother of Parliaments to 
take a lesson from her youngest and least promising de¬ 
scendant.” 2 

Occasionally speeches made in Reform meetings con¬ 
tained a few sentences concerning Germany 3 or France,* a 

Quoted from the Saturday Review, September 1, 1866. 

7 Ibid. 

* Vide speech of Colonel Dickson quoted infra, p. 112. 

3 Replying to congratulations of the workingmen of London to the 
people of North Germany on recent events, Bismarck wrote on May 17, 
1867: “ I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a resolution 


INTRODUCTION 


33 


33] 

pamphlet now and again referred to events on the Conti¬ 
nent, 1 a Reform writer and speaker like Professor Beesly 1 
might declare to a newspaper that he approved of the 
French type of democracy as contrasted with American 
democracy. 3 Yet Rose’s statement — that since 1830 the 
influence of Continental democratic movements on British 
politics has steadily declined 4 —is applicable to the influence 
of Germany and France upon England in 1867. 

Italy is the one Continental country whose influence upon 
British politics was of such importance that the foregoing 
statement would hardly hold true. Italian unity was des¬ 
tined to come from the leadership of Sardinia, the only 
Italian state where absolutism after 1849 had not con " 
quered constitutionalism. Skilfully led by Cavour, Sardinia 
in 1859 won the assistance of Louis Napoleon in a war to 
drive Austria from the peninsula. Although that assistance 
did not free Venetia, the struggle did stir central Italy to 
demand unity under the Sardinian king. In southern Italy 
the activity of Garibaldi and his Thousand led to the over¬ 
throw of the Bourbons and the expressions of a desire on 
the part of the Sicilians and Neapolitans for union with the 
North. Plebiscites showed the strength of this desire. By 
1861, Italy was well on the way to unity under a constitu¬ 
tional government. 

passed at a meeting of metropolitan delegates from trades, friendly 
and temperance and other societies, and from a hundred London 
branches of the Reform League, congratulating the people of North 
Germany on the achievement of full representation and vote by ballot, 
and commenting very kindly on my conduct in advising and defending 
that Reform ...” The Times, May 23, 1867. 

1 Cf. “ L,” Queries on the Franchise. 

1 E. S. Beesly had a professorship at University College, London. He 
wrote much in favor of trade unionism. 

3 The Spectator , April 21, 1866. 

4 Rose, Rise of Democracy, p. 146. 


34 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[34 


England was greatly influenced by this Italian movement 
for national unity. Louis Blanc made mention of the “ im¬ 
passioned interest ” which England, considered as a whole, 
took in Italian affairs. 1 Her moral support, amid the 
strongly expressed disapprobation of the great Continental 
powers, gave, says Lecky, “ both force and respectability 
to the Italian cause, and broke the isolation to which it 
would have otherwise been condemned.” 2 It is true that 
the Conservatives, led by Lord Derby and Disraeli, with a 
feeling akin to that of the great Continental leaders, cher¬ 
ished antipathy to Italian independence and declared for 
the cause of legitimacy, 3 but they were taking the unpop¬ 
ular attitude. 4 Lord John Russell, on the other hand, 
urged that the Italian people should be allowed to form 
their own government freely without the intervention of 
either France or Austria, although — true Whig that he 
was—he refused to put stress on the verdict of universal 
suffrage as expressed by the plebiscites, but regarded the 
voice of the duly authorized representative bodies as the 
only legitimate expression of the people’s wishes. 5 Men 
of more liberal bent had greater enthusiasm for the Italian 
cause. Fawcett, 6 for instance, feeling that the emancipa- 

1 Louis Blanc, Letters on England, translated from the French by 
James Hutton and revised by the author, 2 vols. (London, 1866), letter i. 

2 W. E. H. Lecky, Democracy and Liberty, vol. i, p. 495. Vide Herbert 
Paul, A History of Modern England, 5 vols. (New York, 1904), vol. ii, 
p. 224, for a still stronger statement of England’s influence. 

•The Saturday Review, April 26, 1862. 

4 Saturday Review, July 1, 1865. Vide, also, Frazer’s vol. lxiv, July, 
1861. 

‘Lecky, Democracy and Liberty, vol. i, pp. 493-495. 

® Henry Fawcett was a vigorous but as yet subordinate member of 
the Radical party. Accidentally blinded in 1858 he remained actively 
concerned with public affairs and was elected to Parliament July, 1865, 
as member for Brighton. 


INTRODUCTION 


35 


35] 

tion of Italy was only one of the many struggles going on 
in society to give the lesser man a fair chance, correlated 
this movement with that of the British laboring class, which 
he championed. He was thus “ a lusty swimmer on this 
tide of freedom.” 1 Gladstone, important in the counsels 
of the Liberals, 2 was referred to by a weekly as a patron 
and associate of Italian exiles and liberals. 3 In April, 1862, 
he made a great speech in the House of Commons in which 
he approved of Italian yearnings. His attitude helped to 
secure for him a hold “ upon all of the rising generation 
of liberals who cared for the influence and the good name 
of Great Britain in Europe, and who were capable of sym¬ 
pathizing with popular feeling and the claims of national 
justice.” 4 The majority of educated men and the middle 
class in general felt sympathy for Italy; 5 the working 
class showed its interest on one occasion by presenting to 
Garibaldi as a testimonial a gold watch and chain pur¬ 
chased by penny subscription. 6 So intense was their feeling 

1 Winifred Holt, A Beacon for the Blind Being a Life of Henry 
Fawcett the Blind Postmaster General (Boston, 1914), p. 157. Vide , 
also, Saturday Review, September 17, 1864, “The New Reformers.” 

‘Details of his life and importance are given in chap. iv. 

1 Saturday Review, July I, 1865. 

4 John Morley, The Life of William Ewart Gladstone, 3 vols. (London, 

1903). vol. ii, p. 108. 

6 Saturday Review, January 31, 1863. 

•This was done by the townspeople of Brighton. Vide the Times , 
April 18, 1861. The acknowledgment of Garibaldi came to Mr. Coning- 
ham, M. P.,—'“ Be pleased to express my feelings of great gratitude to 
the English working men, to which good and laborious class I am 
proud to belong, for the valuable gift which they have transmitted to 
me through you. I knew that the hour of Italian nationality was marked 
on the dialplate of time; but, observing that in my own country many 
denied this, because the counsels of the foreigner and dastardly fears 
would have it so, it is a great comfort to me to find that hour indicated 
by the watch which the people of Brighton have given to me.” 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


36 


[36 


that it seemed probable to one writer 1 that England would 
not have hesitated to join France in recovering Italy for 
the Italians in 1859 had the working class been fully repre¬ 
sented in Parliament at that time. 

The full effect of Italian events upon British politics 
was probably first felt as a result of Garibaldi’s visit to 
England in the spring of 1864. Seldom has a foreign hero 
met with the reception accorded Garibaldi by the London 
populace. To the working class he appeared as one striv¬ 
ing for liberation of enslaved peoples all over the face of 
the globe, 2 a soldier who bore the sword for human free¬ 
dom. 3 It was such a belief that gave him great popularity. 
“ In those days,” says Morley, “ there were idealists; 
democracy was conscious of common interests and common 
brotherhood.” 4 Thus was there being created an atmos¬ 
phere in which democracy could triumph. 5 

The enthusiasm aroused by Garibaldi’s visit among the 
millions of unenfranchised workingmen alarmed both Whig 
and Tory leaders. Disraeli, regarding the hero as the foe 
of constituted authority in both church and state, refused 
to meet him, although other Tories paid their respects. 5 


1 R. H. Hutton, The Political Character of the Working Class 
(London, 1867), pp. 31 and 32. 

1 Saturday Review, December 16, 1865, speaking of the attitude of 
the Reform League toward him. When later Garibaldi accepted the 
Honorary Presidency of the Reform League, the League thanked him 
for accepting the honor and addressed him as the proved champion of 
true liberty in all countries. Vide the Times, May 20, 1867. 

• Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. ii, p. 109. 

i Ibid. Qualifications for the franchise were not such, of course, as 
to give anything like democracy to the Italians, but by the activity of 
men like Garibaldi and by the expression of opinions in plebiscites, the 
desires of the great masses for unity had been obtained. 

‘George Macaulay Trevelyan, The Life of John Bright (London, 
1913), P- 331. 

6 Monypenny and Buckle, Life of Disraeli, vol. iv, pp. 327-328. 


INTRODUCTION 


37 


37] 

Whigs received him in their homes but kept him from con¬ 
tact with the people, “ to whom he might act as a flame of 
tinder.” 1 After the reception in London what might not 
happen in the manufacturing centers ? “ Fears of this sort 
were added to other reasons why Palmerston’s Government 
wished to prevent his longer stay in England.” 2 

Although Garibaldi did not make a projected tour of the 
“ provinces ”, his stay in England was long enough to re¬ 
act upon the feelings of the great Liberal leader Gladstone. 
In May of 1864 the latter uttered in the House of Com¬ 
mons words which could mean only that he was willing to 
break the Victorian compromise. Speaking of Parliamen¬ 
tary Reform, he said: “ I venture to say that every man 
who is not presumably incapacitated by some consideration 
of personal unfitness or of political danger is morally en¬ 
titled to come within the pale of the constitution.” 3 Of 
the effects of such a statement upon Gladstone’s position 
among the official class, explanation will be made later; 
that such sentiment came directly from the Italian influ¬ 
ences is vouched for by Gladstone’s great opponent, Dis¬ 
raeli himself. Referring to the foregoing quotation in a 
letter to Lord Derby, Disraeli wrote: “ Though Glad¬ 
stone’s move was matured, and, indeed, for a considerable 
time contemplated, I have no doubt the visit and reception 
of Garibaldi have acted on his impressionable nature, and 
have betrayed him into a far more extreme position than 
was at first intended.” 4 Gladstone’s own biographer has 
summed up the effect of Italian liberation as follows: 

It is easy to see some at any rate of the influences that were 

‘Trevelyan, Life of Bright, p. 331. 

a Ibid. 

1 Hansard, vol. clxxv, p. 324. 

4 Monypenny and Buckle, vol. iv, p. 404. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


38 


[33 


bringing Mr. Gladstone decisively into harmony with the move¬ 
ment of liberal opinions, now gradually spreading over Great 
Britain. The resurrection of Italy could only be vindicated on 
principles of liberty and the right of a nation to choose its own 
rulers. The peers and the ten-pound householders who held 
power in England were no Bourbon tyrants; but just as in 
1830 the overthrow of the Bourbon line in France was followed 
by the Reform bill here, so the Italian revolution of i860 gave 
new vitality to the popular side in England. 1 


Important as was the influence of Italy upon democracy’s 
cause in England, still more important for the growth of 
democratic tendencies was the outcome of the Civil War in 
America. In this struggle democracy was on trial. Eng¬ 
land had already learned of the benefits of American democ¬ 
racy. John Bright for many years had carried its fiery 
cross, as the Saturday Review complained, 2 through the 
length and breadth of the manufacturing districts preach¬ 
ing Reform in all weathers, as Peter the Hermit preached 
crusades. 

With the outbreak of the Civil War in April, 1861, the 
Saturday Review itself was to have the opportunity of 
going on a crusade—a crusade against democracy and John 
Bright. The failure of the “ Model Republic ” to keep an 
undivided household was suggestive enough of the unhappy 
ending of a great experiment in government, but the ex¬ 
pedients to which America had recourse in attempting to 
preserve itself intact were in the opinion of the magazine 
absolutely damaging to the democratic cause. 3 The reck¬ 
less expenditure of funds, 4 the absolutism of the adminis- 

1 Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. ii, pp. 123 and 124. 

3 Saturday Review, February 2, 1867. Vide issues for November 26, 
1859, January 21, i860, December 8, 1866. 

• Saturday Review, October 12, 1861, and February 1, 1862. 

4 Saturday Review, September 14, 1861. 


INTRODUCTION 


39] 


39 


tration with its repression of free discussion, the disap¬ 
pearance of every guaranty of liberty, the ubiquitous 
police, the muzzled press, gave to those opposed to demo¬ 
cratic movements an estimation of the opinion in which 
future true lovers of liberty would hold democracy. If the 
Radicals still rallied around Bright when all his prophecies 
had failed, when the delusive confusion between freedom 
and democracy was being finally banished from the minds 
of Englishmen, 1 scarcely could it be said that the ages of 
faith had passed away. 2 Since the United States which 
practised universal suffrage had become involved in hope¬ 
less difficulties, it would be madness to lower the qualifica¬ 
tion for the suffrage in England and “ overthrow the only 
free representation of sound public opinion which exercised 
sovereign power in any part of the world.” 3 

Against democracy and John Bright the Saturday Re¬ 
view was not a solitary crusader. The press, almost as a 
whole, joined on its side of the struggle. To Blackwood's 
the evils of democracy were not accidental, as might be 
concluded from the example of the French Revolution, but 
inherent, as was shown in the result of the experiment con¬ 
ducted under the most favorable circumstances in America. 


That example should teach both rulers and peoples moderation 
. . . And we have written in vain if we have not also deduced 
a moral for those who would seek to improve our own condition 
by assimilating our institutions to those of America. Our own 
agitators, in their clamour for reform, are descending towards 
universal suffrage. Universal suffrage means, the government 
of a numerical majority, which means oppression—which means 
civil war. What civil war, even in its mildest form, means, we 
know from the Times correspondent; and most heartily do we, 

1 Saturday Review, September 14, 1861. 

* Saturday Review, October 12, 1861. 

9 Saturday Review, November 23, 1861, and February 23, 1861. 


4 Q THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [ 4 o 

in concluding this article, echo his wish—“ God defend us from 
mob law 1 

Frazer's 2 * and the Quarterly Review joined the forces of 
those mentioned. The latter could now rejoice that Bright 
no longer had America to fall back upon because “ the 
great Republican bubble has burst.” 8 The London Times, 
the opinions of which counted for more in both England 
and the United States than those of any other English 
publication, had a warm sympathy with the aristocracy 
across the sea. 4 

Yet the press, in its hostility to the North, merely repre¬ 
sented the opinions of the classes which were powerful in 
society and in Parliament. Palmerston, leader of the Gov¬ 
ernment, was distrusted by Charles Francis Adams, the 
American minister to England. 5 Gladstone, friendly to 
Italian unity, was guilty in 1862 of uttering words whose 
connotation he later found it difficult to explain: “ There 
is no doubt that Jefferson Davis and other leaders of the 
South have made an army; they are making, it appears, 
a navy; they have made what is more than either — they 
have made a nation. ... We may anticipate with cer¬ 
tainty the success of the Southern States so far as regards 
their separation from the North.” 6 * Disraeli thought that 
the United States was breaking down. He and most of 

1 Blackwood’s, October, 1861, “ Democracy Teaching by Example,” 
P. 405. 

* Vide issues of November, 1859, and July, 1862. 

• Quarterly Review, vol. cx, pp. 254-256. 

4 Vide Charles Francis Adams, Charles Francis Adams (Boston, 1900), 

p. 349, and James Ford 'Rhodes, History of the United States, 8 vols. 

(New York, 1900-19), vol. iv, pp. 82-84. The Spectator often opposed 
the opinions of the Times. 

•Adams, Charles Francis Adams, p. 241. 

•The Times, October 9, 1862. 


INTRODUCTION 


41 


41] 

his followers took it that the disruption of Bright’s ideal 
democratic community showed the instability of an ex¬ 
tended suffrage as the foundation of a state, and believed 
that the collapse of republican institutions would tell 
greatly in favor of aristocracy. 1 But Disraeli had the wis¬ 
dom to keep his opinions to himself. 

The aristocracy and the upper middle classes were hos¬ 
tile to the United States because pure democracy was hate¬ 
ful to them, wrote Cobden. 2 Mr. Trevelyan, in the Life of 
John, Bright declares that “ the Conservative classes, Tory 
and Whig, were nervously aware that Bright’s democratic 
movement was threatening their own monopoly of political 
power. If democracy triumphed in America, nothing could 
long delay its advent over here. But if democracy in Amer¬ 
ica failed, the reaction would be strongly felt in Europe 
and most of all in Great Britain.” He goes on to say that 
Motley 3 found the situation unbearable and wrote after 
Bull Run, “ The real secret of the exultation which mani¬ 
fests itself in the Times and other organs over our troubles 
and disasters is their hatred, not to America so much as to 
democracy in England.” 4 The Quarterly Review wrote 
that the American proceedings would have been discussed 
less eagerly in England and criticized with less freedom if 
they had not been made the turning point of a political con¬ 
troversy at home. Battles on American soil were deciding 
the status of Mr. Bright’s theories. 5 Mr. W. E. Forster at 

1 Monypenny and Buckle, vol. iv, pp. 328 and 402. 

a T. Wemyss Reid, Life of the Right Honorable William Edward 
Forster, 2 vols. (London, 1888, 2nd edition), vol. i, p. 341. 

3 The historian, Motley, was in England from 1859 to the middle of 
1861. In August, 1861, he left the United States to which he had 
returned two months before, as minister to Austria. 

4 Trevelyan* Life of John Bright, pp. 304-305- 

5 Quarterly Review, vol. cxii, “The Confederate Struggle and Re¬ 
cognition.” 


4 2 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[42 

a Reform meeting of May 16, 1865, at Manchester clearly 
stated that dislike of democracy was the cause of the hos¬ 
tile attitude toward the North: 

What was it made such a large portion of our aristocracy 
espouse the cause of the South ? He did not believe it was love 
of slavery, or even hatred to a republic, though that might have 
had something to do with it (Applause). He believed it was 
an instinctive feeling that there was a chance for aristocratic 
government such as had not been seen before; that in that 
manoeuvring oligarchy of the South, although they might not 
be proud of them as a very good imitation of themselves (a 
laugh)—yet, after all, there was the hope that there, in a young 
Anglo-Saxon country, an aristocracy was taking root, which, 
if the South obtained power, would be a strong force in the 
world. It was an instinctive feeling of that kind which made 
the aristocracy rally to the South, and made one of their most 
talented representatives (Lord Robert Cecil) say in the House 
of Commons that the South were our natural allies. (Loud 
laughter and groans.) They certainly were natural allies of 
Loid 'Cecil's order, but not the natural allies of England. 
(Applause). 1 

There were also other reasons for a hostile attitude. 
According to Louis Blanc, not only the democratic institu¬ 
tions but the prodigious development of power under those 
institutions grieved aristocratic England. 2 The feeling of 
jealousy toward the power of the great republic of the West 
and the wish that it might be weakened by the success of 
the rebellion did exist. 3 The high tariff of the North con¬ 
trasted poorly in the Englishman’s eye with the free trade 
of the South. Commercial and manufacturing interests 

l The Times, May 19, 1865. 

* Louis Blanc, Letters on England, letter xlviii. 

3 Vide William Harris, History of the Radical Party in Parliament 
(London, 1885), pp. 447-448. 


INTRODUCTION 


43 


43] 

desired an early end to a war that was preventing the im¬ 
portation of raw cotton in England and the exportation of 
manufactured goods to America. 1 Moreover, many of the 
English believed that the South was within its constitu¬ 
tional rights in withdrawing from a distasteful union, and 
others argued that the South had the doctrine of the rights 
of nationalities on its side. 2 A “ sporting spirit,” on one 
hand, led to a partisan interest in the welfare of the com¬ 
paratively small power skilfully carrying on a desperate 
struggle with an unwieldy and gigantic adversary; 3 a con¬ 
servative judgment, on the other, might decide that final 
subjugation of five and a half millions of people was impos¬ 
sible and that continuation of warfare was a useless waste 
of life. 4 

Fortunately for the United States, these causes of Eng¬ 
lish hostility did not appeal to certain leaders of the lower 
classes or to those classes themselves. Bright, Cobden and 
W. E. Forster were the three important men of the middle- 
class element who remained friendly to the United States, 5 
“ the friends, of free labor and advocates of a democratic 
republic.” 6 Confederate statesmen knew their influence 
and feared much their opposition to the recognition of a 
slaveholders’ Confederacy. 7 Mention of Bright and Cob¬ 
den has been made before. They understood the real mean¬ 
ing of the struggle going on across the water. Bright told 

1 Rhodes, History of the United States, vol. iv, pp. 77 and 78. 

* Vide Lecky, Democracy and Liberty, vol. i, pp. 487 and 488. 

l Ibid., p. 487, and Morley, vol. ii, pp. 85 and 86. 

4 Rhodes, vol. iv, p. 78, and Lecky, vol. i, p. 488. Vide, also, Leslie 
Stephen, The “ Times” on the American War, reprinted in the Magazine 
of History, vol. x. 

5 Reid, Life of Forster, vol. i, p. 33& 

•Adams, Charles Francis Adams, p. 156. 

T Ibid., pp. 262, 299, 302. 


44 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[44 

a meeting of skilled laborers, held in London on March 26, 
1863, that the struggle was between two sections of a coun¬ 
try, in one of which labor was honored more than else¬ 
where in the world and men might “ rise to competence 
and independence,” and in the other of which labor was 
degraded and the laborer made a chattel. 1 W. E. Forster 
was rather young in parliamentary life, having first been 
elected as a member of the House of Commons from Brad¬ 
ford in 1861. He proved to be, in the opinion of Charles 
Francis Adams, “ the most earnest, the most courageous, 
and the most effective friend the United States had among 
men prominent in English life.” 2 All three were influen¬ 
tial in guiding the opinions of the working class. 

To the workingmen, especially to the Lancashire opera¬ 
tives, honor has continued to be given for holding to the 
cause of the North when dire distress caused by the cotton 
famine 3 naturally would have led them to demand an end 
to the Northern blockade of Southern ports. Their interest 
in the matter, far deeper than that of the professional 
classes, an interest opposed to the line of policy they 
adopted, did not blind them to the great idea involved in 
the struggle; 4 freedom contending with slavery called not 
in vain for their support. Even when the outcome of the 
war seemed destined to be unfavorable to the Union—to¬ 
ward the close of 1862 and in the early months of 1863— 
their public meetings gave strong manifestation of sym¬ 
pathy for the North. Writing of their attitude, Louis 
Blanc said: 

Uohn Bright, Speeches on Questions of Public Policy, edited by- 
James E. Thorold Rogers (London, 1868), vol. i, pp. 248 and 249. 

8 Adams, Charles Francis Adams, pp. 263 and 188. 

8 For details, vide chap. ii. 

4 R. H. Hutton, The Political Character of the Working Class, pp. 
30 and 31. 



INTRODUCTION 


45 ] 


45 


While the members of the aristocracy, the landed proprietors, 
the great manufacturers, and the politicians of the drawing 
room or the club, breathe nothing but vengeance, war, and 
victory, it is to what an imbecile pride is accustomed to call the 
lower stratum of society, that we must descend to look for 
calmness, moderation and a thoughtful love of peace. 1 


Until July, 1863, the foes rather than the friends of 
democracy had cause for happiness. Neither abroad nor at 
home was the American government reaping advantages. 
In the latter part of 1861, the American Captain Wilkes of 
the San Jacinto nearly caused war with Great Britain by 
stopping the British mail steamer Trent and taking forc¬ 
ibly from it two accredited Confederate emissaries; in 1862 
Louis Napoleon and English public men were pressing the 
British government towards recognition of the South. 2 
Feeling among the upper classes was so intense that the 
Emancipation Proclamation was interpreted as a sham to 
deceive Europe. Moreover, Union forces in the field were 
not successful. The Saturday Review declared that Amer¬ 
ican events were causing the influence of radicalism to 
wane. 3 Blackwood's shows very well the satisfaction of 
the conservative press: 

It would perhaps be too much to say that the tendencies of our 
constitution towards democracy have been checked solely by a 
view of the tattered and insolvent guise in which republican¬ 
ism appears in America. The right instinct and good sense of 
the country had already preserved it from following the Reform 
leaders in their downward strides to the declivity that overhangs 
chaos. ... As the pause, however, proceeded from indiffer¬ 
ence rather than conviction, that season might have arrived, and 


1 Louis Blanc, Letters on England, letter xlviii, p. 25 2. 

2 Adams, Charles Francis Adams, p. 278. 

* Saturday Review, August 2, 1862. 


4 6 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [46 

the effort might have been renewed. But the events which 
have since passed in America have made a deep impression on 
the public mind. Theorists might have uttered warnings 
through an entire generation without producing a tithe of the 
effect which has followed from the spectacle of floundering 
democracy. . . . The only result at present of a proposal to 
“Americanise our institutions ” on an audience who are wit¬ 
nessing the Transatlantic exhibition, would be to induce a belief 
that the proposer was insane. Possibly the time is not very 
distant when what have lately been propounded as great poli¬ 
tical truths may, for a season at least, be classed among the 
most astonishing delusions; when faith in political equality and 
universal suffrage will appear as absurd and unintelligible as 
in right divine and the infallibility of the Pope. 1 

But the aristocracy was shocked by the victories of Get¬ 
tysburg and Vicksburg in July, 1863. 2 A possibility of 
war between England and America was contingent upon 
the escape of iron-clad rams which were being built in Eng¬ 
land for the breaking of the blockade. Their escape would 
probably have been much more damaging to the cause of 
the North than had been the escape of the Alabama . 3 Earl 
Russell’s activity warded off that danger in the fall of 
1863. Thereafter there was little chance of intervention. 
By March, 1865, the Spectator declared that the House had 
at last become convinced that the North must win. 4 Cob- 
den in a letter dated February 5, 1865, wrote to the Amer¬ 
ican minister at Copenhagen: 5 

1 Blackwood’s, April, 1862, p. 514. 

2 R. Barry O’Brien, John Bright, A Monograph (London, 1910), 
pp. 157 and 158. 

8 The Alabama escaped from Liverpool in July, 1862, and during her 
career burned fifty-seven vessels of a value of over six and a half 
million dollars. Vide Rhodes, vol. iv, pp. 365 and 366. 

4 The Spectator , March 18, 1865. 

5 Bradford R. Wood was the minister to Denmark in the early part of 
1865. 


INTRODUCTION 


47 ] 


47 


Democracy has discovered how few friends it has in Europe 
among the ruling class. It has at the same time discovered its 
own strength, and, what is more, this has been discovered by 
the aristocracies and absolutisms of the Old World. So that 
I think you are more safe than ever against the risks of inter¬ 
vention from this side of the Atlantic. Besides, you must not 
forget that the working class of England, who will not be al¬ 
ways without direct political power, have, in spite of their 
sufferings and the attempt made to mislead them, adhered 
nobly to the cause of civilization and freedom. 1 


Democracy came out of the struggle triumphant and the 
workingmen were vindicated. By their clearness of insight 
into the merits of a great national question and by their 
resolute determination to support the right, they had proved 
that they might be called upon to take part in their own 
government with safety and advantage. 2 Mr. Forster told 
them that “ if any community had done anything towards 
helping the right cause, and taking care that England was 
not disgraced in all future history by going on the wrong 
side in this contest, it had been the working men of Lanca¬ 
shire.” And he added: “ If they had a care about Reform 
they would be repaid for what they had done, by the lesson 
which the triumph of freedom, the triumph of popular 
government in America taught those who refused the work¬ 
ingmen their rights,” 3 For their part the workingmen 
continued to look with enthusiasm toward the American Re¬ 
public. The Saturday Review complained that “ even the 
audacious anticipation of one speaker, that in the course of 
years England would be absorbed by the Western Republic, 
was received [by them] certainly without any too patriotic 

^he Times, April 3, 1865. 

2 William Harris, The Radical Party in Parliament, p. 448. Vide , 
also, Winifred Holt, A Beacon for the Blind, p. 157. 

•At a Reform meeting at Manchester. Vide the Times, May 19, 1865. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


48 


[48 


discomposure, and even with a measure of approval, as if 
it were probably about the best thing that could happen 
to us.” 1 

The various magazines, indeed, bear witness to the fact 
that the victory of the Union reacted for the cause of 
democracy, just as the expected failure had reacted for the 
power of aristocracy. The Spectator declared that democ¬ 
racy in America had come victorious out of a war which 
would have crushed any European monarchy except the 
British, and had overcome a rebellion before which even 
Great Britain might possibly have succumbed. 2 In 1866 
the Fortnightly Review pointed out that a few years ago 
republican government had been on its trial in America and 
its success seemed to be uncertain. “ There was then a 
lull in the Reform movement in England, and a very mod¬ 
erate measure would have satisfied its supporters. . . . The 
United States have exhibited a wealth, a strength, an or¬ 
ganization, a temperance and moderation after their great 
successes, which show that universal suffrage and the freest 
institutions are compatible with a well-ordered state.” 3 

The outcome of the American struggle had a great effect, 
too, upon the opinions of certain of the political leaders 
like Gladstone. He had learned that “ universal suffrage 
had proved itself compatible with the display of certain 
great qualities.” 4 Gladstone’s biographer mentions that 
American events had “ reversed the fashionable habit of 
making American institutions English bugbears, and gave 
a sweeping impulse to that steady but resistless tide of lib¬ 
eral and popular sentiment that ended in the parliamentary 


1 Saturday Review, December 16, 1865. 

* The Spectator, July 1, 1865; vide, also, the number for February 
17, 1866. 

1 Fortnightly Review, September 15, 1866. 

* Saturday Reviezv, April 14, 1866. 


INTRODUCTION 


49 


49] 

reform of 1867.” 1 As the Americans themselves foresaw, 
the liberal, democratic, progressive party headed by John 
Bright and his friends had a prodigious increase of power. 2 

The evidence showing the influence of America upon 
England has been striking enough to call forth the state¬ 
ment that “ it is hardly too much to say that the Reform 
Bill of 1867 was a direct product of the Northern triumph 
in the American war.” 3 In April, 1866, Professor Beesly, 
when addressing a Reform meeting, attributed the revival 
of the Reform agitation to the result of the American war 
and observed that republicanism was looking up in the 
world. 4 

Nevertheless, succeeding chapters will show that the 
power of the urban artisan class, especially as exerted 
through their trade unions, made their admission to polit¬ 
ical power inevitable 5 when once their feeling had been 
aroused by economic pressure, the eloquence of their middle- 
class leaders and the openly-expressed hostility of the ma¬ 
jority of the members of Parliament. For, it will be seen, 6 
the majority of members, even in the lower House, were 
still hostile to anything approaching democracy in 1866, 
although they could not point to its failure. But events in 
Italy and America were of influence at least to this extent: 
they gave inspiration and confidence to men like Bright 
and Forster and had not a little to do with the changing 
attitude of a less radical person like Gladstone, and they 

1 Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. ii, p. 124. 

2 Vide the Times, April 16, 1866, quoting the New York Times. 

8 William Archibald Dunning, The British Empire and the United 
States (New York, 1914), P- 230. 

4 The Times, April 12, 1866. 

5 Cf. Bernard Holland, The Life of Spencer Compton, Eighth Duke 
of Devonshire, 2 vols. ('London, 1911), vol. i, pp. 64 and 65. 

6 In chap. iv. 


50 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [50 

kept England from becoming reactionary, from being 
handed over for years, as it was after 1815, to an admin¬ 
istration resolved to resist all changes as “ dangerous to 
our institutions.” 1 


Cf. the Spectator, July 15, 1865. 


CHAPTER II 


Condition of the Working Class in the ’Sixties 

In the foregoing pages note was made of the fact that 
the working class, during the prosperous years of the 
’fifties, ceased that violent agitation which was carried on 
in the unfortunate decade of the ’forties. During the 
years 1866 and 1867, it will be seen, 1 an agitation for poli¬ 
tical Reform once again was taken up. Naturally the ques¬ 
tion arises: did the economic situation in the ’sixties help 
to stir up discontent ?—Such is the question with which the 
present chapter will deal. 

The early ’sixties, indeed, need very little attention, inas¬ 
much as conditions in general show much the same pros¬ 
perity as was evident during most of the preceding ten years. 
Agricultural prosperity may be said to have lasted from 
1854 to the end of 1865. i860 ought to be mentioned 

as an exception although even during the winter of that 
year free trade happily obviated to a great extent the effects 
of domestic scarcity. For. owing to the very large im¬ 
portations of grain from Europe and America, the cost of 
“the prime necessary of life”—as the Annual Register 2 
points out — was kept within moderate bounds and occa¬ 
sioned but little pressure upon the poorer classes. With 
commercial, financial and industrial conditions, there was 
little room for complaint. The revenue was proving the 
satisfactory state of industry; the returns issued by the 

1 Cf. infra , pp. 101 et seq. 

2 Annual Register, vol. ciii f 1861). p 2 

5i] " l 


5 2 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [52 

Board of Trade were testifying to the continued expansion 
and development of commerce. 

1865, as representing the middle section of the decade, 
likewise gave an encouraging report. The circulars sent to 
the Economist , with scarcely an exception, were filled with 
congratulations on the prosperous results; of the trade of 
that year. The woolen, cotton, iron, linen, shipping, hard¬ 
ware, chemical, timber, and building trades were all active. 1 
The cessation of the Civil War in America and the conse¬ 
quent demand of the American market doubtless contributed 
largely to this result during the latter part of the year. 3 
There was no great number of commercial failures. Un¬ 
certainty in the cotton market caused some difficulty, how¬ 
ever, and a demand on the Bank of England due to the re¬ 
mittance of gold in an attempt to hasten the arrival of raw 
cotton meant a considerable drain of bullion and frequent 
and severe variations of the rate of discount. 8 ' Wages were 
advancing. The harvest, though not highly productive, 
was generally of a fair average character. 4 In short, the 
main elements of the national strength—agriculture, com¬ 
merce, manufactures—were well sustained and gave pro¬ 
mise of increased development; public finances were emin¬ 
ently buoyant and transactions of foreign commerce were 
on the largest scale. 5 And, had there been a great “abatement 
in the painful contrast ” which still existed even in a prosper¬ 
ous year between enormous wealth and luxury on one hand 
and painful destitution and pauperism on the other, Eng¬ 
land’s annalist might have been still more cheerful. 

! The Economist, March 10, 1866—supplement, “Commercial History 
and Review of 1865." 

'Ibid., p. 1. 

3 Ibid., p. 2. 

4 Annual Register, 1865, new series, p. 160. 

6 Ibid., p. 185. 


53] THE WORKING CLASS IN THE ’ SIXTIES 53 

Noteworthy exceptions there were, to be sure, to this 
generally favorable description, the most important of which 
was the cotton famine due to the American Civil War. Al¬ 
though possibly many cotton spinners would have been 
ruined by a surplus of raw material at hand at the opening 
of the war and an overcrowded market of manufactured 
goods which must have been sold at a sacrifice, the surplus 
was quickly used up when the regular supply was cut off, 
and soon factories had to cease work and the millhands 
found themselves out of employment. Just how important 
the cotton industry was, may be seen from the fact that the 
trade profits of Lancashire in i860 constituted nearly one- 
fifth of the entire amount classed under that head for all 
England. 1 Consequently the distress occasioned by the 
partial 01* total stoppage of the cotton mills was great. The 
situation was the most pressing a short time prior to Christ¬ 
mas, 1862: 2 * 4 * the weekly loss of wages in the cotton manu¬ 
facturing districts at that time was estimated at approxi¬ 
mately £i68,ooo. a The number of paupers relieved ini 
the distressed unions of Lancashire and Cheshire the first 
week of December, 1862, was 284,418; during the first week 
of January, 1863, 266,450, and during the first week of 
February, 1863, 236,780/ By the first week of September, 
1863, the number had dropped to 155,163. Thereafter, ex¬ 
cept for a reaction 6 from October, 1863, to February, 1864, 
there was improvement in employment until September and 
October of 1864 when rumors O'f peace caused fluctuations 
in the prices of cotton. By 1864, however, the difficulties 

1 Journal of the Statistical Society of London , 1862, p. 536. 

2 Accounts and Papers , 1863 (100-I) lii, 157 et seq. 

• Annual Register , 1863, new series, p. 140. 

4 Accounts and Papers, op. cit. 

6 Vide Thomas Mackey, History of the English Poor Law (London, 

1899), p. 415, and Accounts and Papers, 1863 ( 515 ) hi, 220. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


54 


[54 


of the operatives had been lessened by imports of the raw 
material from various quarters of the world and by the 
absorption of the redundant labor in other channels, and 
the cotton famine may be considered to have terminated. 1 

The distress had been alleviated somewhat, and the losses 
of wages made up, to a partial extent, by the rates levied 
under the poor law and the voluntary contributions of the 
public—the latter yielding by far the larger amount. Be¬ 
fore the end of January, 1863, these voluntary contributions, 
from the various parts of the United Kingdom and from 
the Colonies, had exceeded three quarters of a million sterl¬ 
ing. 2 The fund was controlled and allocated in weekly sums 
by committees. The amount thus obtained by the opera¬ 
tives plus that granted by the poor rates gave just bare sub¬ 
sistence. The poor rates were obtained by the Union Re¬ 
lief Aid Act 3 from such an extensive territory that the 
burden of the distressed parishes was relieved by contribu¬ 
tions from adjoining districts. By the same Act loans on 
mortgage of the rates could be raised for the purpose of 
affording relief. This Act, limited in its operation to the 
first of March, 1863, was extended to June and then passed 
again. In the early part of the summer of 1864 a new 
plan to help—the Public Works Act 4 —was passed. By its 
provisions loans were to be issued by the Government, at a 
low rate of interest, to the local authorities in the cotton 
manufacturing districts, for the purpose of enabling them 
to employ the operatives who were thrown out of work in 
executing improvements required in the various towns, such 
as drainage, construction of roads, water works, and similar 
undertakings. 


^he Times, June 19, 1865. 

2 Annual Register, 1863, p. 2. 

*25 and 26 Viet., c. no; cf. Annual Register, 1863, pp. 151-4. 
4 27 and 28 Viet., c. 104. 


55 j THE WORKING CLASS IN THE ’SIXTIES 55 

Yet the calamity produced by the cotton famine was, to 
the Annual Register, not without its alleviating circum¬ 
stances. 1 It was endured by the working class with a 
patience which did not escape notice, it excited universal 
sympathy, and it was not attended with that degree of 
demoralization which might have been anticipated from so 
great a dislocation of ordinary habits and industrious pur¬ 
suits. The sufferers felt that the distress to which they 
were reduced was owing to' no neglect or errors of the 
Government, no injustice of the laws under which they 
lived. In fact, with but a single exception there was no 
disturbance, no outrage, scarcely any agitation or audible 
complaint throughout the heavily afflicted districts. That ex¬ 
ception—an outbreak of two or three days in March, 1863, 
at Ashton-under-Lyne and adjacent territory — occurred 
over payments in tickets instead of money by the relief com¬ 
mittee. Several shops and houses were plundered by the 
mob. Troops assisted in stopping the rioting. Forty-two 
persons were finally convicted and sentenced to terms of 
imprisonment varying from one to six months, but it was 
believed that the majority of the disturbers were people who 
had never worked in the mills. 

Closely connected with the cotton famine was a commer¬ 
cial crisis of the year 1864. 2 Since the commencement of 
the war, cotton had been a favorite article for speculation, 
as was also, to a lesser extent perhaps, sugar, tallow, jute, 
rice and fruit. Quotations had reached a very high point 
when rumors of peace were freely circulated. The price 
of cotton and of the other articles that were unduly ad¬ 
vanced, began to recede, and soon came the announcement 
of several failures. Joint stock companies felt the strain. 

1 Annual Register, 1863, p. 2. 

* Vide Economist, March 11, 1865, supplement, “ Commercial History 
and Review of 1864." 


5 6 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [56 

The extraordinarily low prices of all classes of production, 
however, soon began to attract buyers; a favorable reac¬ 
tion set in and before the end of October the commercial 
prospect began to> brighten. 

The year 1865 also had its exception to the generally 
favorable conditions in the appearance of the cattle plague 
or rinderpest — an event which, because of its continued 
duration and influence, belongs to the year 1866 as well as 
to 1865. Whole herds of cattle around London died off; 1 
one inspector who had charge of a great part of the north 
and northeast of London stated that in his own district 
more than four-fifths had either died or been slaughtered. 
By the early winter of 1865 the disease had spread in many 
counties of England, in Scotland and Wales, and continued 
to work destruction during the whole of the following 
year. The effect of the plague upon the price of commod¬ 
ities was a cause of public anxiety: mutton and beef were 
charged by the butchers in the autumn of 1865 at twenty 
or twenty-five per cent above the rates of preceding years, 
and the price of milk rose twenty per cent. 2 

On the whole, however, the period of the early ’sixties 
may be said to have been prosperous. The one great ex¬ 
ception is, of course, the distress in the cotton manufactur¬ 
ing districts, but the cause of that distress, it seems, was 
patent to the workingmen and no blame could be placed 
either upon the Government or upon the ruling classes. 
Because of the cotton famine the percentage of unemployed 
during 1861, 1862, and 1863 was very large, indeed. On 
the other hand, the average money wages rose, if 1850 is 
taken as the base year, 8 from 114 in i860, 116 in 1862, 

1 Annual Register , 1865, p. 161. 

'Ibid., p. 170. 

8 When a year or a fixed period is taken as the standard, or base, its 


THE WORKING CLASS IN THE ’SIXTIES 


57] 


57 


117 in 1863, to 124 and 126 in 1864 and 1865 respectively, 
while average retail prices went from 111 in i860 and 114 
in 1861 to 106 in 1864 and 107 in 1865. Real wages for a 
workman of unchanged grade rose from 99 and 97 in i860 
and 1861 respectively to 100 in 1862, 104 in 1863, and no 
in 1864 and 1865, a point which was not again reached in 
the ’sixties. And trade was increasing by leaps and bounds. 

A study of the years 1866 and 1867, however, gives by 
no means so favorable a picture of economic conditions. 
The harvest during both years was poor. In the critical 
months of August and September, 1866, the weather was 
unusually wet and stormy and the wheat crops suffered 
much. 1 With a yield decidedly below the average, prices 
were much enhanced. This circumstance, combined with a 
contraction of the demand for labor, arising from com¬ 
mercial failures, and the exceptionally severe weather, made 
the winter of 1866-1867, as will be seen, 2 a period of con¬ 
siderable suffering to the poorer classes. A generally poor 
harvest of 1866, moreover, extended over all Western 
Europe, presaging a restriction of the purchasing means of 
the bulk of the population. 3 In 1867, too, the yield of the 
cereal crops was so decidedly below the average that large 
importations were necessary. 4 The average price of wheat 
per imperial quarter for the calendar year 1863 had been 


staples are represented by an index arbitrarily fixed at 100. The ratios 
obtained by comparing staples at a given time with the base, give index 
numbers. 

The index numbers of George H. Wood in the Journal of the Royal 
Statistical Society, 1909, “ Real Wages and the Standard of Comfort 
since 1850 ” are here used. 

1 Annual Register, 1866, p. 186. 

2 Cf. infra, pp. 75 et seq. 

*The Economist, March 9, 1867, supplement, “Commercial History 
and Review of 1866,“ p. 1. 

4 Annual Register, 1867, p. 204. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


58 


[58 


44s. 9 d.) for 1864, 4Qs\ 2d. ; for 1865, 41s. lod. ; but so 
unfavorable was the harvest of 1866 that the average price 
was 49s. nd. From 45^. 9 d. at the first of May it had 
risen to 6oy. by the last week of December. It stayed 
around this figure through March and then gradually ad¬ 
vanced until at the end of May, 1867, ^ stood at 65s. 3 d. 
Since July, 1866, the country had had a price of wheat 
from sixty to eighty per cent above the prices which pre¬ 
vailed in the last three years, 1863-1865; the same remark 
would hold good of a large part of Europe and America. 
“ In the wide diffusion of a calamity of this magnitude/' 
said a writer in the Economist, “ there is afforded at once 
an explanation of a large part of the difficulties of 1866 
and 1867, and the present time." 1 It was estimated that 
the harvest of these two years entailed an extra cost of at 
least forty millions sterling on the country 2 —at the very 
time, too, when a severe collapse of enterprise and credit 
was having its bad effects. 

With regard to financial and commercial matters the 
year 1866 started off in a fair condition. It is true that 
even during the first part of the year a high rate of interest 
and a mania for speculation was causing some foreboding 
but it was commonly asserted that trade was healthy, 8 and 
the failure of one or two country banks was attributed to 
local causes. Th^ Quarterly Review thought the material 
condition of the country was furnishing no cause for 
anxiety. “ Our wealth is overflowing," it said, “ our 
commercial prospects are unclouded, save by the excess of 
our own activity; and nothing seems likely to disturb either 


'The Economist, March 14, 1868, supplement, “ Commercial History 
and Review of 1867,” p. 2. 

5 Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 1869, p. 82. 

* Annual Register, 1866, p. 184. 


59 


59 ] the working class in THE *SIXTIES 

the peace of Europe or the profound contentment which 
this island is enjoying.” 1 The Times, in discussing what 
the ensuing twelve months were likely to bring to pass, felt 
“ cheerful and thankful.” 2 

February, however, saw severe liquidation on the stock 
exchange, and there were some important failures in April. 
On the ninth of May the Bank rate rose to nine per cent; on 
the tenth the failure of a firm of world-wide reputation— 
Overend, Gurney & Company, whose business as bill-dis¬ 
counters had been transferred in the preceding year to a 
joint-stock company with limited liability — produced ter¬ 
rible consternation. On the following day, Friday, great 
restless crowds collected in the streets, especially in the 
banking quarters of the city. 3 The Times depicts the 
tumult becoming a riot by midday: 

The doors of the most respectable Banking Houses were be¬ 
sieged, more perhaps by a mob actuated by the strange sym¬ 
pathy which makes and keeps a mob together than by creditors 
of the Banks, and throngs heaving and tumbling about Lom¬ 
bard street made that narrow thoroughfare impassible. The 
excitement on all sides was such as has not been witnessed since 
the great crisis of 1825, if, indeed, the memory of the few sur¬ 
vivors who shared that Panic can be trusted when they com¬ 
pare it with the madness of yesterday. Nothing had happened 
since the day before to justify such a fear as was everywhere 
shown. 4 

4 ‘ Black Friday” was not soon forgotten in London; other 
great commercial cities of the kingdom which had been 
affected by the news likewise had cause for remembering 

1 Quarterly Review, January, 1866, p. 250. 

1 The Times, January 5, 1866, editorial. 

*Vide Annual Register, 1866, chronicle, pp. 44 and 45. 

4 The Times, May 12, 1866, editorial. 


60 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF IS67 [60 

the day. The Government found it necessary to suspend 
the Bank Act, but the Bank of England did not extend its 
note issue beyond the amount permitted by the Act of 
I ^ 44 * 1 

Unfortunately the effects of the crisis were not destined 
to pass away so suddenly and rapidly as the crisis itself 
had come. The Times vouches for the fact that nothing 
had happened the week before to excite universal alarm. 2 
The Bank rate of discount was not so high as it had been 
again and again in the last three years, and though the 
glories of finance companies had begun to pale, and it was 
known that the Imperial Mercantile Association was totter¬ 
ing, there was no reason to* apprehend any panic in conse¬ 
quence of a collapse which was distinctly foreseen. 3 It had 
been the suspension of Overend, Gurney & Company on 
the tenth of May which awoke the terror of the creditors. 
The name of the firm was historical, and the magnitude of 
its liabilities would tend to show that the mass of depositors 
had confidence in the public company with limited liability. 
But the influence of the panic was to be seen through many 
of the succeeding months. Two or three banks failed 
within the week. 4 The rate of ten per cent discount which 
was imposed on the Bank of England as a condition of the 
additional power of issue lasted from the eleventh of May 
to the seventeenth of August; and when the rate did de¬ 
cline from eight to six, to five, to four per cent, the price 
of the Funds and of shares in railway and joint-stock com¬ 
panies scarcely rose at all. Moreover, an intense foreign 

1 By the Bank Charter Act of 1844 (the 7 and 8 Viet., c. 32) issues 
of the Bank were to be covered by bullion, three-fourths in gold, ex¬ 
cept for £14,000,000 covered by Government securities. 

*The Times , May 15, 1866, editorial. 

» Ibid. 

4 Annual Register, 1866, p. 184. 


6i] THE WORKING CLASS IN THE ’SIXTIES 61 

distrust 1 of every English signature was engendered by 
the suspension of the Bank Act. Lord Clarendon’s cir¬ 
cular 2 to British Embassies and Legations throughout 
Europe, explaining the distinction between scarcity of 
money and insolvency, and giving as the causes of the 
panic overspeculation due to prosperity, the derangement in 
commercial transactions produced by events on the Conti¬ 
nent, which hindered a return to a‘sound state in monetary 
matters, and as immediate cause the stoppage of the great 
discount house of Overend, Gurney & Company did little 
to check the prevailing suspicion. 3 

So bad was the situation that the royal speech at the 
prorogation of Parliament on August io expressed great 
concern over the monetary pressure which had weighed 
upon the interests of the country so long; and although on 
the first of October the Times was still optimistic, claiming 
that in spite of all commercial troubles people had been 
well employed and the rate of wages had permitted the 
masses to live well, 4 by the latter part of November com¬ 
plaint was heard in this newspaper: 

Trade is slack. Wherever we turn this is the report which 
meets us. Whether it be the hardware of Birmingham or the 
soft goods of Yorkshire, the flax-spinning of Scotland or the 
mining industry of the West, which is the subject of inquiry, 
the answer is the same monotonous croak. There is little or 
nothing doing. Bankers won’t look at new and promising in¬ 
vestments. Merchants are inaccessible to the most glowing 
descriptions of untried foreign and colonial markets. Stocks 
hang on hand and accumulate in spite of all the care of pro¬ 
file Economist, March 9, 1867, supplement, p. 5. 

2 To be found in the Times, May 22, 1866. Lord Clarendon was Sec¬ 
retary of State for Foreign Affairs. 

2 Annual Register, 1866, p. 184. 

4 The Times, October 1, 1866, editorial. 


62 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [62 

ducers and warehousemen to keep them low. Towards the 
end of the month slight demand for money arises, but it is only 
for the payment of debts when bills mature on the coming 
fourth. It is in no case occasioned by the growth of trade or 
the revival of speculation. Paris echoes the complaint of 
London. 1 

Such was the heritage of 1867. The Annual Register 
points out that during this year “ commerce and credit did 
not display their wonted elasticity ” in recovering from the 
disasters of 1866, that a gloom was cast over the surface 
of society and embarrassment and distress were spread 
among thousands of families. 2 The sufferers belonged not 
only to the section of society classified by the Times as 
those who could ill afford pecuniary sacrifices or those 
who could find but little consolation in the discussed in¬ 
direct advantages following from the bursting of commer¬ 
cial bubbles 3 but to that section whose incomes were de¬ 
pendent on those investments which had greatly depreciated 
in value. Railway securities, for instance, became less val¬ 
uable when troubles with railway property and railway 
management in general came as a result of the exposure in 
1866 of the financial condition of the London, Chatham 
and Dover Company, the Great Eastern Company, and the 
North British Company. 41 

As an example of the unhappy influence of the panic 
upon private individuals, the Globe quotes that in the in¬ 
land revenue department at Somerset House, where was 
kept a register of all those persons paying duty on carriages 

*The Times, November 28, 1866, editorial. 

* Annual Register, 1867, p. 202. 

8 The Times, December 31, 1866, editorial. 

4 The Economist, October 19, 1867, under the article “Railways,” dis¬ 
cusses the depreciation in value of railway property. 


THE WORKING CLASS IN THE 'SIXTIES 


63 ] 


63 


and horses, 1600 persons in less than two months gave 
notice of the intention to discontinue keeping their car¬ 
riages. 1 * Even traveling was checked somewhat, we read,* 
and places of public amusement were less resorted to. 

A more intimate knowledge of the latter part of 1866 
and of 1867, however, can be gained from reports on trade. 
The official tables of exports and imports seem to testify 
to a continued expansion of foreign trade for 1866. 3 And 
it is true that the amount of commerce carried on was still 
immense and growing, but it was not increasing with that 
percentage of augmentation which marked the preceding 
year. The real truth may be disguised too easily by looking 
at the trade figures for the year and refusing to note the 
effect of trade during the early months upon the total: a 
comparison of the returns for 1866 month by month with 
those of the preceding year shows no great increase during 
the latter part of 1866. In fact, there was a diminution in 
percentage of augmentation. 4 1867, moreover, saw no im¬ 
provement over 1866. 

The reports on the condition of the leading trades as 
given in the Economist were discouraging. In the cotton 
industry—outside of the first seven months of 1866 when 
the supply of raw cotton was in excess of the demand, while 
the demand for the manufactured article fully equalled the 
supply—the high price of the raw material, together with 
the slackened demand for goods, kept England’s largest 
branch of the manufacturing industry in a fluctuating, 


1 The Globe, February 2, 1868—cited in the Economist, March 14, 1868, 
supplement, p. 2. 

* Annual Register, 1866, p. 185. 

8 For a discussion on revenue returns, vide R. D. Baxter, National 
Income (London, 1868), p. 28; for graphs, vide Bowley, England’s 
Foreign Trade. 

4 C/. Accounts and Papers, 1867 (46-xii) lxv, 607, 629. 


64 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [64 

feverish and unprofitable state. 1867 opened with a gen¬ 
eral adoption of short time as the only mode of enabling 
the manufacturers to keep in check the price of the raw 
material, and to clear their warehouses of unsold goods. 
Trade throughout the year remained unsatisfactory both to 
the importers of raw material and to the exporters of the 
manufactured articles. 

The iron industry—next to the cotton trade the most im¬ 
portant industry of the country—likewise felt the depress¬ 
ing influences which were generally prevailing. There was 
a decline in prices of articles in 1866 and a demand insuffi¬ 
cient to keep the works going full time; the great disorgan¬ 
ization of the home demand, consequent on the commercial 
crisis, and the disrepute falling on railways and other com¬ 
panies, explained in part the condition. In 1867 the iron 
trade was dull and unsatisfactory, and the general course 
of prices, at least to the middle of the year, tended down¬ 
ward. 

In the linen trade the year 1866 was the worst which had 
been experienced for some years past, and the dullness and 
inactivity which prevailed at the close of 1866 and which 
led to a partial stoppage of flax-spinning machinery, con¬ 
tinued throughout 1867; and, if the descriptions of the 
condition of other industries such as the chemical trade, 
the leather trade, the woolen trade, were somewhat more 
favorable in 1866, the reports of 1867 presented expressions 
of hope for the coming year rather than of rejoicing over 
the past. 

Other events there were which add little to the good 
reputation of these two years. The cattle plague, which 
during the earlier months had not been checked, was prov¬ 
ing so ruinous to farmers and graziers, especially to those 
of the northwestern counties, that many an ancient pasture 
had to be given up. The money loss for 1866 due to the 


THE WORKING CLASS IN THE ’SIXTIES 


65] 


65 


disease was computed at not less than £3,500,000. 1 The 
Government found it necessary to act. It prohibited mar¬ 
kets and fairs for the sale of lean and store cattle, and, 
among other regulations, gave the local authorities power 
to kill animals which had been exposed to contagion. Some 
compensation was to be given to the owners. Again, the 
Austro-Prussian War disorganized and checked Continental 
trade. Prospects of war had a bad influence on the market 
some time before the actual declaration. Some of the re¬ 
ports to the Economist placed a considerable amount of 
blame upon the Continental situation for the English trade 
conditions. 

Two other events, not strictly economic, helped to de¬ 
press the public: the activity of the Fenians, 2 who were 
causing so much disquietude that Parliament in February, 
1866, passed a bill for the suspension of the habeas corpus 
act in Ireland, and the presence of cholera, which, though 
not causing many deaths, was alarming, especially in the 
eastern parts of London, during the latter part of July and 
the first of August. 

Gloomy enough, then, is a general description of eco¬ 
nomic conditions during the period of the Reform agita¬ 
tion, 3 yet it is only by going to the statistician that there 
can be found the definite statement concerning the condi¬ 
tion of that class to which the Reform bill was to give the 
franchise. His figures on prices, wages, and unemployment 
must tell much concerning the workingman. In his attempt 
to get the desired material, to piece together from here and 
from there the economic history of the nineteenth century 


1 Annual Register, 1866, p. 182. 

3 The word is derived from an old Irish word meaning “champion 
of Ireland.” The aim of the Fenians was to throw off British rule. 

3 This is described in chap. iii. 


66 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [66 

he has had to expend much energy; 1 and the information 
obtained, he may warn, 2 gives only general trends and is 
not to be used carelessly for fine distinctions. Nevertheless, 
the results of his work, supplemented by more or less typ¬ 
ical accounts taken directly from contemporary writers, 
give the best account now available for the years 1866 
and 1867. 

PRICES 

Difficulty is met at once when data on retail prices are 
sought. Investigations on this topic have, as yet, made 
little headway 3 although material upon wholesale prices is 
at hand for this portion of the nineteenth century. The 
following cases, however, chosen more or less at random, 
will make clear the trend of retail prices. The London 
Times for July 10, 1866, gives the following data regard¬ 
ing the cost of living for workingmen in Lancashire: 

The clamor among operatives of Lancashire for increased 
wages is no doubt attributable principally to the great rise that 
has taken place during the past three years in the price of pro¬ 
visions. This rise is illustrated by the following facts: seven 
men of the county constabulary have for some years lodged 
at a certain house in Preston, the whole joining in a common 
stock of provisions, and each at the end of the week paying his 
proportion of the cost. As an accurate record has been kept 
of all provisions consumed, and the price paid for each article, 
they are enabled to make an exact comparison of the weekly 

1 Vide Mr. A. L. Bowley’s discussion of Mr. Wood's paper in the 
Royal Statistical Society Journal, vol. lxxiii (1910), pp. 626-629, for a 
statement of the difficulties which the statistician has had to overcome 
in compiling his information. 

1 Vide A. L. Bowley, in the Royal Statistical Society Journal, vol. 
lxix (1906), “The Statistics of Wages in the Nineteenth Century.” 

3 Vide Mr. G. H. Wood in the Royal Statistical Society Journal, vol. 
lxv (1902) under the article “ The Investigation of Retail Prices,” p. 685. 


6 y] THE WORKING CLASS IN THE 'SIXTIES 67 

cost per head during the whole of the time they have lived to¬ 
gether. In the first week of July, 1863, the cost was 7s. 8d; 
of July, 1864, 7s. 1 id.; of July, 1865, 8s. 5d.; of July, 1866, 
9s. 5d. . . . Food in July last was hence about twelve per cent 
cheaper than at present and in 1863 about twenty-two and one- 
half per cent cheaper. As doggers, cobblers, shoemakers, 
tailors, dressmakers, etc. all raised their prices immediately the 
factory operatives obtained their recent advanced wages (from 
five to ten per cent), it is more than probable that with the pres¬ 
ent price of food, and the increased charges for nearly all other 
necessities, they are not so well off as they were in 1863 or 
even last year at this time. 1 

In the Parliamentary Reports of 1889 2 is to be found 
specially supplied to the Board of Trade the annual bal¬ 
ance sheet of a working cabinet-maker. Housekeeping cost 
£1 4s. 3c?. a week in 1865, £1 ys. in 1866, and £1 11$. in 
1867. Notable advances took place in the prices of bread, 
some kinds of meat, and beer. A summary shows that in 
this particular household the item including rent, taxes, 
water, was very high in 1866 but that much less was spent 
for clothing during the year than in either 1865 or 1867.* 
Retail prices of bread as taken from the Greenwich Hos¬ 
pital bread prices show the effect of the poor harvests men¬ 
tioned above. 4 A four-pound loaf sold for 5 l / 2 d. in 1865, 
for 6d. in 1866 and for 8d. in 1867. A detailed statement 
of retail prices of provisions can be obtained from extracts 
from the books of a Mr. George Dix, grocer and general 
dealer, as given by Brassey: 5 

^he Times, July 10, 1866. 

2 Accounts and Papers, 1889, (c-5861) lxxxiv. 

* The wages earned were less in 1866 than in 1865 and 1867. 

4 Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, vol. lxv (1902), p. 690. 

5 Thomas B. Brassey, On Work and Wages, 3rd edition (London, 
1872), pp. 164 and 165. 


68 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[68 


TABLE A 



1864 

1865 

1866 

1867 



s. 

d. 


s. 

d. 

£• s. 

d. 


s. 

d. 

Flour per sack. 

1 

8 

0 

1 

10 

0 

1 

14 

6 

2 

0 

6 

Cheese per lb. 

0 

0 

8 

0 

0 

sy 2 

0 

0 

10 

0 

0 

9 

Butter “ “. 

0 

1 

4 

0 

1 

5 

0 

1 

6 

0 

I 

3K 

Bacon “ “. 

0 

0 

8 

0 

0 

9 

0 

0 

9 

0 

0 

8 

Tea “ «. 

0 

3 

8 

0 

3 

8 

0 

3 

8 

0 

3 

6 

Coffee “ “. 

0 

1 

4 

0 

1 

4 

0 

1 

4 

0 

1 

4 

Sugar “ “. 

0 

0 

5 

0 

0 

5 

0 

0 

5 

0 

0 

4^ 

Candles “ “. 

0 

0 

6 ^ 

0 

0 

6 

0 

0 

6 M 

0 

0 

6 ^ 

Soap “ “ . 

0 

0 

4K 

0 

0 

4^ 

0 

0 

4K 

0 

0 

4^ 

Beef “ “ . 

0 

0 

7 % 

0 

0 

8K 

0 

0 

8 

0 

0 

7 % 

Mutton “ “ . 

0 

0 

8 

0 

0 

8 

0 

0 

sy 

0 

0 

7 % 

Bread “ “ . 

0 

0 


0 

0 


0 

0 


0 

0 

2 


A glance at wholesale prices for the period confirms the 
impression of the increasing cost of living obtained from 
retail prices. The index numbers used to represent 1866 
as given in the Economist and elsewhere must be under¬ 
stood to take into consideration the prices of raw materials 
of manufacture. The great drop in cotton, flax, etc., from 
the end of May on, therefore, will greatly affect the index 
number representing prices for the year although the con¬ 
dition of the workingmen may not be much bettered by the 
change in these articles. 1 In such a case a table as the fol¬ 
lowing, containing some data on those articles of food as¬ 
serted by Professor Leone Levi to be necessities for the 
British workingman may take the place of a weighted 
average: 

1 Leone Levi, Wages and Earnings of the Working Classes (London, 
1867 ), p. xxxviii, says about two-thirds of the income of workingmen 
was spent on food. 




























69 


69] THE working CLASS IN THE ’SIXTIES 


TABLE B i 



Jan., 

1865 

Jan., 

1866 

June, 

1866 

Sept., 

1866 

Jan., 

1867 

June, 

1867 

Wheat per quarter 2 

(Gazette prices) . 

Beef per 8 lbs.* 

37J. lod. 

46*. 3d. 

47*. sd. 

49*. 7 d. 

6ox. 2d. 

65*. S<*- 







(Inferior middlings) .. 

42 d} 

36 d. 

44 d. 

48 d. 

44 d. 

44 d. 

Mutton per 8 lbs. 2 






(Middling). 

50 d} 

52 d. 

56^. 

60 d. 

4 Sd. 

50 d. 

Pork per 8 lbs. 2 . 

52 d? 

5 Sd. 

56 d. 

56 d. 

40 d. 

46 d. 

Sugar per cwt. 






(Bengal good). 

24*.* 

27*. 

24*. 

23*. 6 d. 

24*. 6 d. 

24*. 6 d. 

Tea per lb. 

9 %d? 

1 2d. 

12 d. 

10 y 2 d. 

9 %d. 

6 d. 

Butter per cwt. 

119*. 

123*. 

123*. 

11 5 *. 

115*. 

115*. 

Bacon per cwt. 







(Hamburg). 

54*. 

61s. 

62*. 

71*. 

71*. 

.... 

Barley per quarter. 2 . 

28*. 5 d. K 

32s. 9d. 

35*. id. 

37*. 2d. 

44*. 3 d. 

36*. 2d. 


The preceding pages seem to show that Wood 6 has not 
gone astray in representing average retail prices in 1866 
and 1867 by higher index numbers than those used for the 
preceding years. 6 

But it is obvious that prices taken by themselves cannot 
mean anything. The real condition of the workingman can 
be ascertained only by additional data on wages and un¬ 
employment. If wages rise faster than prices the working¬ 
man will find himself in a more prosperous condition even 
though prices are soaring. What data, then, can be ob¬ 
tained on wages ? 

1 Material for such a table can be found conveniently in the Economist. 

2 Professor Levi says that bread and meat absorbed the largest portion 
of the laborer’s income devoted to food: Wages and Earnings, p. xxxix. 

3 Lowest figures given are used. 

4 Average Gazette prices (monthly) to be found in Accounts and 
Papers 1867-1868 (4028) lxx, 100 and 101. 

5 Cf. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 1909, p. 102. 

®Wood shows a fall after 1867. Articles in the Economist on 1867 
and 1868 seem to confirm his work. 






















70 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[70 


WAGES 

Unfortunately material upon this topic is not even so 
good as it is upon prices. The Parliamentary Accounts 
and Papers do give many figures concerning wages, but 
how difficult it is to deduce a table from them, for year- 
periods, can be judged only by an actual attempt to accom¬ 
plish the task. As Mr. Bowley says, 1 one’s impression on 
first taking up the question of the statistics of wages as in 
the cotton trade is one of simple chaos; the various lists 
give no guide as to hours, the rates vary from place to 
place, and the minute grades of occupation also vary from 
place to place. The statistician again warns that his work 
must not be accepted for fine distinctions. Nevertheless his 
labor may give some material on the general trend of 
wages. A review of the work of Bowley and Wood in the 
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society shows 2 the year 
1866 somewhat favorably as contrasted with 1865 or 
1867. Evidently during a part of 1866 wages were rising, 
although a fall is seen for the year 1867. When the labor¬ 
er’s wages in 1886 are taken as 100, his wages in 1865, 
1866, and 1867 are represented by the index numbers 87, 
88, and 87 respectively. Wages of pattern-makers are rep¬ 
resented for those years by the index numbers 152, 158, 
155; ironmoulders by 166, 166, 166; machinists 118, 122, 
121; shipwrights 173, 178, 162, and so on. Index numbers 
of average rates in engineering and shipbuilding in nine¬ 
teen districts 3 give about the same results. Likewise when 
actual figures are used in place of index numbers, the above 
data is upheld. Weekly wages of all workpeople in the 
cotton industry during the three years averaged 144, 157, 

1 Journal of the Royal Statistical Society , vol. lxxiii (1910), pp. 626-627. 

3 Vide tables, vol. lxix (1906), pp. 174-175. 

3 Ibid., pp. 162 et seq. Vide also average figures from seventeen 
sets of workingmen, vol. lxii (1899), pp. 664-665. 


THE WORKING CLASS IN THE 'SIXTIES 


7 1 


71] 

and 158 d. 1 The Accounts and Papers, in showing the 
wages of carpenters and joiners for the years 1862 to 
1890, give the following for 1865, 1866 and 1867: 24 s., 
26s ., 2 6s. 2 According to Bowley in Wages in the United 
Kingdom, Scotch brewers received 4s. id., 4^. 6d., 4^. 
i^d. daily. 3 Webb’s Industrial Democracy gives the aver¬ 
age standard rate of wages per week of a stonemason at 
Glasgow, as 28s. 6d. (1865), 2ys. yd. (1866), 28s. 8d. 
(1867); and the standard rate of wages of compositors in 
London per week as 33^., 36^., 36^. 4 The quarters of wheat 
purchasable with the wages in each case is given as 0.68, 
0.55, and 0.45; 0.79, 0.72, 0.55. Provided a workingman 
lived entirely on bread his condition was much worse in 
1866 and 1867 even though his wages had increased some¬ 
what. 

The facts so far given do not, of course, tell what part 
of the year 1866 caused the increased index number for 
wages. For any changes which took place during any 
months of the year, we must go to the newspapers, weekly 
and daily. And they cannot be expected to give the exact 
statistical information desired. 

The year opened under favorable auspices, according to 
the Fortnightly Review; 5 in the issue of May first, com¬ 
ment is made upon the prosperity and the content of the 
mass of the people, the general rise of wages and the better 
understanding between capital and labor, and finally, the 
lack of response on the part of the workingman, because 
there was not distress in the country, to the attempts to 

1 Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, vol. lxxiii (1910), p. 599. 

2 Accounts and Papers, 1890-91 (c-6475) xcii, 504. 

8 A. L. Bowley, Wages in the United Kingdom in the Nineteenth 
Century (Cambridge, 1900), p. 105. 

4 Webb, Sidney and Beatrice, Industrial Democracy (London, 1902), 
appendix iii. 

6 Fortnightly Review, vol. iv, p. 75& 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


72 


[72 


arouse him for Reform. The Times here and there sub¬ 
stantiates the opinion that wages were rising. We read of 
the London carpenters and joiners receiving an extra half¬ 
penny per hour on the existing rate of wages, or 8 d. per 
hour. 1 We read 2 that in North and East Lancashire an 
extensive agitation was going on regarding wages and 
hours of labor—a movement confining itself to no partic¬ 
ular class but permeating all sections, “ from scavengers 
up to sub-editors, and from high-class artisans down to 
‘ half-penny shavers’ and washer-women.” And while 
some of the claimants received no concessions and realized 
no improvements, either in reference to the rate of re¬ 
muneration or the hours of labor, many obtained almost all 
they sought for. At Preston, for instance, all the operative 
weavers received an advance of ten per cent upon the stand¬ 
ard list of prices; the spinners and minders likewise ob¬ 
tained an increased rate of remuneration; the printers were 
given an advance of wages, ranging from 2s. to 4s. or 53*. 
per week. The shoemakers had to remain out for three 
days and then obtained the extra money they had demanded; 
the stonemasons were on strike for a month before they 
were able to get the reduction of hours which they asked 
for, and the joiners and the flaggers and slaters were, at 
the writing, still on strike, the former for more money, the 
latter for certain alterations in their rules. Some wanted 
increases in wages, which they did not get—the scavengers 
for instance, and the warehousemen in the employ of the 
North Union Railway Company. Many barbers who had 
charged y 2 d. for a single shave demanded and received id. 
The washerwomen, too, in some of the East Lancashire 


1 Vide the Times, April 19; a discussion on the subject is to be found 
in the issues for April 26 and April 30. By May ,17 most of the firms 
had paid the advance. 

2 A resume is to be found in the Times, June 22. 


73 


73 ] THE WORKING CLASS IN THE ’SIXTIES 

towns tried to secure an advance of wages. At Bacup the 
painters were striking for an advance of Yzd. per hour; at 
Accrington the shoemakers received an increase; at Black¬ 
burn the plumbers and glaziers and some factory opera¬ 
tives were on strike, and the stonemasons were demanding 
fewer hours; at Chorley the weavers had their wages raised 
and yet were not content. 

In contrast to the upward trend of wages during the first 
half of the year, however, a trend in the opposite direction 
will be found during the later months. The Economist 
mentions 1 that wages fell in 1866 in several large trades 
from ten to twenty per cent, and declares the most decided 
fall occurred in the iron trade 2 and iron shipbuilding trades, 
in the midland and northern districts. The reductions were 
submitted to only after protracted strikes. The strike 
among the ironworkers on the Tyne, Wear, and Tees lasted 
for nineteen weeks, from July to November, and ended in 
the unconditional surrender of the men. The explanation 
given for the change in wages was that for four or five 
years capital had been bidding for labor, and there was, 
consequently, a continuous rise of wages. Suddenly capital 
was paralyzed 3 and now labor had to bid for capital. In 
the building trades, too, there came a severe check and 
employment was scarce. 

By January, 1867/ the factory operatives of North and 
East Lancashire were protesting against a proposed reduc¬ 
tion of five per cent in wages; they preferred short time. 
Most of them apparently thought the market was over- 

1 The Economist, March 9, 1867, supplement, p. 2. 

* The Times of September 12 tells of iron workers locked out for 
refusing to accept a reduction of ten per cent; it mentions, too, a raise 
given to hand mule weavers employed by one man at Preston and a 
reduction of hours to bricklayers. 

3 That is, after the panic. 

4 Vide the Times, January 7, 1867. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


74 


[74 


stocked, although here and there the suggestion was made 
that a reduction in the profits of the manufacturers and 
merchants might help matters. A memorial presented to 
the employers set forth that the five per cent conceded them 
in February last had been more than swallowed by increased 
rents, and that since that time the prices of meat, coal, and 
the necessities of life had been advanced to the extent of 
twenty-six and a half per cent. They, therefore, respect¬ 
fully prayed that their wages might not be reduced, but that 
short time might be substituted and the market by that 
means surely but gradually relieved. But within a month’s 
time a large number of men agreed to accept the reduction. 1 


UNEMPLOYMENT 

That the condition of the workingman was not so good 
after the middle of 1866 as it had been before, is probably 
a safe conclusion from the facts given above. That a better 
detailed knowledge of his condition could be obtained if 
we knew something definite about unemployment will not 
be disputed. Anything like exact and final figures on un¬ 
employment cannot, of course, be obtained. Mr. Wood in 
articles 2 in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 
however, has been able to tell something concerning the 
progress made by the workingman since i860 by tracing 
the percentage of unemployed as shown by the records of 
the more important trade unions. 3 His results 4 show that 


1 Vide the Times, January 9, January 15, January 17. 

2 Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, vol. lxii (1899) and vol. 
lxiii (1900). 

3 Vide also an article by E. L. Hartley in the Journal of the Royal 
Statistical Society, vol. lxvii (1904), where marriage and pauperism are 
suggested as tests for unemployment and also diagram on this by Wood, 
vol. lxii, in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, p. 660. 

4 Mr. Wood, in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, vol. lxii, 
p. 643, has something to say concerning the understatement of the evil 
in the fifth report on trade unions. 


THE WORKING CLASS IN THE 'SIXTIES 


7 5 ] 


75 


1866 was not so favorable a year as was 1865, and that 

1867 was much worse in unemployment than was 1866. 
Whether the average percentage of members in want of 
employment be used or the average expenditure per head 
on unemployed and traveling benefit, the conclusion is much 
the same. The Registrar-General’s Report gives a decrease 
in pauperism for the March and June quarters of 1866 as 
compared with the same period of 1865 but an increase in 
1866 over 1865 for the December quarter. And the open¬ 
ing months of 1867 show a great increase over the corres¬ 
ponding months 1 of 1866. Written pictures of pauperism 
as given to the Times suggest, moreover, a much worse 
condition than the actual statistics show. Statistics cannot 
tell the whole truth because many workingmen were un¬ 
willing to receive parish relief not only because such a course 
of action would tend to break down their self-respect but 
because it would disqualify them from taking advantage of 
benefits connected with their trade and friendly societies. 
On the other hand, the descriptions of the newspapers may 
be too gloomy. Yet there can be found in the Times, almost 
at random, during the period of greatest stress, letters de¬ 
picting the condition in London: 


At certain doors of those districts (waterside districts of East 
London) are to be seen daily, crowds of men jostling, striving, 
almost fighting, for admission—to what ? ... to gain the privi¬ 
lege of breaking hard stones for two or three hours in a cold 
muddy yard attached to the parish workhouse, for the reward 
of threepence and a loaf of bread. 

These men, too, are not clad in the usual stoneyard apparel, 
they wear good coats—rags are scarcely to be seen. They are 
men who, not very long ago, were earning from 18^. to £2 
weekly, to whom the very mention of the workhouse would have 


1 1867 as a whole had a worse record than 1866. 


76 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [76 

been contamination; and here they struggle and wrestle for its 
most meagre advantages. 

There are many other parishes, I believe, similarly situated. 1 

The Lord Mayor, calling the attention of a meeting of 
bankers, merchants, magistrates and others to 1 the prevailing 
distress among the laboring population in the eastern part 
of London, said: 

Mr. Jeffries, the relieving officer for the South District, . . . 
reported the total number of persons relieved out of the house 
that week was 8,319, being an increase on that of the corres¬ 
ponding week of last year of 5,453. ... A gentleman residing 
in the West Indies road, writing on Sunday last, states that 
he had visited many of the working people at their houses in 
that neighborhood, and that the distress among the mechanics 
and laborers is appalling. Many of them, he says, are quite 
disheartened, sitting within bare walls, with neither bed nor 
clothing and with their children almost naked and famishing. 
Strong young men had burst into tears on seeing him enter, and 
pointed to their starving wives and children in silent despair. 
Some among them had been very improvident; but others quite 
the reverse. He had that day relieved a young man with four 
children, who was an ironworker, and had been out of employ¬ 
ment for many months. He was a teetotaller, and husbanded 
his saved earnings to the last, and now, with his family, had 
nothing to lie upon but the bare floors, and nothing to cover 
them but a single sheet. The writer adds that he could fill a 
volume with cases of like destitution and that he fears the 
late conduct of the Shipwrights’ Union at the Thames Iron¬ 
works will do much harm and subject many innocent persons 
to suffering. 

The Rector of Bethnal Green writes that there is a great 
deal of distress there; that the commercial panic, the cholera, 
and the frost have severely affected the working classes; that 


The Times, January 12, 1867. 


THE WORKING CLASS IN THE 'SIXTIES 


77 ] 


77 


the rates are now in the proportion of 8 s. in the pound a year; 
that the workhouse is full, every spare space being occupied 
by a bed; and that on Tuesday last eight hours were spent in 
inquiring into the outdoor cases. . . . The Secretary of the 
Docks and Wharfs Laborer’s Association, High Street, Shad- 
well, writing on Saturday last, thinks he may safely say 20,000 
of those classes are now quite out of employment and had 
not earned a shilling for the last two months; that probably 
15,000 of them are dragging out a miserable existence by 
pledging little things and selling articles of furniture. . . . An¬ 
other correspondent writes: “ Sickening and heartrending have 
been the scenes of distress I have witnessed during my four 
months’ voluntary employment of doing what I could, in my 
humble degree, to assist in alleviating the misery of some of 
my fellow creatures. Upwards of 500 families during that 
time have been brought under my notice, and I can unhesitat¬ 
ingly affirm such a season of distress and misery was never 
before experienced in the locality.” He adds that during all 
the summer months, owing to the scarcity of work and the 
visitation of cholera, many families had to part with articles 
of clothing, bedding and everything upon which money could 
be obtained, so that when winter set in they had nothing left 
to dispose of, and the pawnbrokers, whose shops are already 
crammed with goods, care but to give the merest trifle. . . Now 
the distress was fearfully and palpably developed by the 
continuance of cold weather. To particularize cases of dis¬ 
tress, he says, is almost beyond his power. It is widespread 
and almost universal. 1 


The January return of the Poor Law Board showed the 
large amount of distress in England elsewhere than in Lon¬ 
don. 2 In the northmidland division, the district least af¬ 
fected, the number of persons in receipt of relief was only 
2.7 per cent more than in the corresponding period of 1866, 

^he Times, January 22, 1867. 

* Vide statement of the Rev. Rowsell in the Times , February 7, 1867. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[78 


78 

but in the southwest division the increase was 4.4 per cent, 
in Wales 4.6 per cent, in Yorkshire 5.3 per cent, in the south- 
midland division 6.1 per cent, in the northern 8.8 per cent, 
in the westmidland 11.4 per cent, in the southeastern 12.6 
per cent, in the northwestern 27.4 per cent, and in the 
metropolis 72.6 per cent. 1 

Thus the data on prices, wages and unemployment—neces¬ 
sarily rather vague—suggest that the period when Reform 
was being made an important public question was a time 
of serious economic difficulty for the people who were to be 
affected by a change in the franchise law. Additional 
material, not statistical, showing that it was a period of 
gloom is not lacking. For instance, the Economist says: 

In our review of 1866, we said that the year had “ left behind 
it sinister influences which will penetrate far into ’67, or per¬ 
haps into ’68 ” and the events of the last twelve months have 
confirmed this expectation. Nearly the whole of 1867 has been 
occupied in converting the mistakes which preceded, and re¬ 
trieving, as far as possible, the losses which were inflicted by 
the crisis of 1866. The year has been, therefore, throughout 
its whole course, a period of arrangements, liquidations, com¬ 
promises, retrenched expenditure, circumscribed trade, and gen¬ 
eral indisposition to trust the future. It has been a year of 
strict supervision of all elements of cost—a year of declining 
wages and of stern comparisons between English and Foreign 
capabilities of commanding neutral customers. 2 

Elsewhere it speaks of 1866 and 1867 as two dark years— 
the period of rough discipline. The tone of these circulars 
already referred to, which were sent to the Economist to 
give information concerning various trades for the year 
1866 is almost without exception unfavorable. The writers, 

l Cf. the Times, April 16, 1867. 

J The Economist, March 14, 1868, supplement, “Commercial History 
and Review of 1867,” p. 1. 


79] THE WORKING CLASS IN THE ’SIXTIES 79 

each speaking of facts of his particular business, comr 
plained of expectations unfulfilled, losses incurred and for¬ 
mer relations of trade broken up. The report on the 
cotton trade begins with this statement: 1 “From nearly 
every point of view regarding the material interests of the 
country, the past year has been one of the most disastrous 
on record;” the report on the linen trade with this: 

In reviewing the progress of our staple trade during 1866, we 
regret that we cannot continue the same favorable account of 
it as we had to give in our last annual circular, the year that has 
just expired having been the zuorst 2 that has been experienced 
for some years back, especially to those engaged in the spinning 
trade; 

the one on the woolen trade with this: 3 

The year which has just closed will be long remembered, not 
only in this district, but in the country at large, as one of the 
most disastrous in the present century. The severe and, per¬ 
haps, unprecedented monetary panic, the Austro-Prussian war, 
cholera, deficient harvest, and the strikes in the iron trade, have 
all combined to restrict the natural operations of business, 
and entailed loss and inconvenience on nearly every class of 
the community; 

and the one on the iron trade with this: “ The Iron trade 
has been in an unsatisfactory condition throughout the year, 
prices of all descriptions having steadily declined, whilst the 
demand has been insufficient to> keep the works going full 
time.” Sir Robert Giffen, at one time president of the Royal 

1 These quotations are to be found in the Economist, March 9, 1867, 
supplement. 

2 The original is in italics. 

3 The report from Bradford; the report from Leeds has a more cheer¬ 
ful tone, although reports from Huddersfield and Halifax show the 
effects of the panic. 


8o 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[8o 


Statistical Society and also chief of the statistical depart¬ 
ment of the Board of Trade, although believing that the 
trade depression of this period came entirely from a very 
moderate change as compared with a period of prosperity, 
speaks of this as a time when “ men’s hearts were failing 
them for fear of what the consequences of the great panic 
of 1866 might be.” Writing sometime afterwards he ex¬ 
pressed himself in his Essays in Finance 1 as recollecting no 
period when trade was spoken of in more desponding terms 
than it was in 1867. “ The city was dull,” he states, “ as 

every one said, beyond all previous experience, with money 
at two' per cent for an unprecedented time; a remarkable 
article appeared in the Edinburgh Review, discussing the 
strike of capital; no symptom was wanting to what is called 
a marked period of depression.” 

And now arises the important question: did the period of 
depression help stir up discontent against the existing con¬ 
ditions; could the Reformers make use of distress to cause 
those who- cared little for Reform in prosperity to demand 
it in adversity? Did the writer judge correctly when he 
said: “ The country clamors for Reform—Parliamentary 
Reform—Reform somehow. Something is felt by Great 
British starvation to be vitally wrong? ” 2 

There can be little doubt, indeed, that the commercial 
panic and the subsequent period of depression did much to 
awaken the nation. As the Westminster Review pointed 
out: 

When a commercial panic brings disturbance to trade and in¬ 
dustry, then the evils of pauperism and crime in their more 

1 Sir Robert Giffen, Essays in Finance, 2nd series (New York, 1886), 
pp. 2 and 3. 

2 W. F. Stanley, Proposition for a New Reform Bill (London, 1867), 


8l] THE WORKING CLASS IN THE 'SIXTIES 81 

aggravated form excite attention, and the community are 
hurried into hasty and spasmodic action. The financial dis¬ 
asters of 1866 have been felt through the whole community, but 
more severely by the humbler orders who have to depend upon 
precarious employments. The ranks of the pauper classes 
have been swollen, and the burthens upon the rates and upon 
every kind of public and private charity are heavier than they 
have been for many preceding years. 1 

That the “ humbler orders ” and the working class as a 
whole, might be stirred by economic pressure even to de¬ 
mand political privileges, was a possibility remarked upon 
by the Spectator: 

It is quite possible,—we desire carefully to guard ourselves 
against any positive anticipation—but it is quite possible, that 
Parliament has postponed this Reform question one year too 
long, and will have to settle it during a season of very consider¬ 
able popular distress, and therefore of earnest popular agitation. 
The reports which come in from all sides are not very reassur¬ 
ing. The Iron Trade is in deep trouble, so deep that the best 
organized Union in England, that of the Southern Ironworkers, 
has accepted a blank reduction of ten per cent, which at another 
time would have encountered sharp resistance, and that men 
who were thought to be millionaires find finance their most 
serious occupation. Bread, though not positively “ dear,” ac¬ 
cording to the ante-Free-Trade standard of prices, is very 
much dearer than it has been, and the average rate of wages 
has not yet adjusted itself fully to the slow but visible rise of 
prices. Agricultural laborers still swarm to the towns. The 
emigration towards the great cities has been of late so rapid 
that the number of men outside the regular grooves of labor is 
large, and it is on these men that pressure falls with its first 
severity. Finally, the effects of the “ panic ” have at last 
reached down to the lowest class, the sediment, as it were, of 


1 Westminster Review, April, 1869, p. 438. 


82 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [82 

our reservoirs of labor. ... A contractor refuses all but the 
least riskful enterprise. This does not ruin his best workmen, 
who have savings and are indeed seldom discharged, but it 
presses terribly on vast classes beneath them, on the unskilled 
laborers in particular. Add to these causes temporary cir¬ 
cumstances, like the suspension of river traffic, great fleets un¬ 
able to enter the Thames, the quarrel in the ship building trade, 
on the merit of which the public is, we suspect, still misin¬ 
formed,—and the cessation of dockyard labor, and we can 
readily understand that there have been “ bread riots ” in Liver¬ 
pool, and terrible distress in the riverine parishes of London. 
In Greenwich, Deptford, and Poplar this distress has taken a 
dangerous form, almost threatening large masses of human 
lives. There are said to be 30,000 “ shipwrights,” but rather 
shipwright’s laborers and dockyard people, out of work, ex¬ 
clusive of the number always thrown out by a frost, of new 
immigrants, and of the wives and families of all these persons. 
The poorhouses are full beyond the possibility of receiving 
more, and “ liberal out-door relief,” the usual panacea, involves 
this terrible difficulty. It means additional taxation upon 
parishes already so heavily taxed that every additional shilling 
in the pound throws hundreds of self-supporting persons upon 
alms. Thousands of bakers, pork-butchers, green-grocers, and 
petty linendrapers are dependent on these ship laborers, and of 
course can get nothing from them at present, are compelled in 
fact, at once by policy and feeling, to be as lenient as they 
dare. They struggle on, often amid real deprivation, eating 
one meal a day, and so on, and imploring forbearance from the 
larger dealers who supply them, but any peremptory demand 
for cash overweights them at once. They have not got it, and 
they cannot get it, and they sink. 1 

Others there were, like the chairman at the meeting of 
dock laborers, a meeting called to consider the hard times, 
who stated distinctly that nothing could be done until the 


^he Spectator, January 26. 


83] THE WORKING CLASS IN THE 'SIXTIES 83 

working classes had a money interest with the capitalists 
and until, as a class, the workingmen were represented in 
Parliament. 1 The “ commercial morality ” of the business 
class was to blame for 1866’s great disaster, said one of 
England’s magazines; 2 and the Beehive , 3 the official organ 
of the trade unions, was quick to declare that workingmen’s 
representatives in the House of Commons would soon make 
it known that the present terrible situation was due to the 
capitalists and the middle class, that portion of the country 
political powerful. With a few such representatives in the 
House public opinion on the subject of trade unions would 
be revolutionized, and (it continued) 

the fallacy of the cry of “ Tradesunions driving trade to for¬ 
eign countries ” 1 would speedily be shown, and the real object 
of that cry—the reduction of wages, that employers may still 
keep up their enormous profits to maintain the luxury and ex¬ 
travagance indulged in, if not by themselves personally, by 
their families—mercilessly exposed. With a few such men in 
the House, the ridiculous and miserably false statement, that 
the present stagnation of trade, and distress of the unemployed 
workmen, had been brought about by Trades-Unions and 
strikes, would be exposed and scattered to the winds, and the 
real cause would be made patent to the world—viz., the late 
monetary panic, brought about by the reckless over-trading, 

*The Times, January 29, 1867. 

* The North British Review. 

•The Beehive, a weekly organ of the trade-union world, was published 
from 1861 to 1877 under the editorship of George Potter. Because of 
the contributions of such writers as Frederic Harrison, E. S. Beesly, 
and other friends of trade unionism, it became, Mr. Sidney Webb says, 
the best labor newspaper which has yet appeared, and is of the greatest 
possible value to the student of trade-union history. Unfortunately 
there is to be found no complete file. So far as can be discovered, 
Mr. John Burns is the only person possessing a set for the years 1865, 
1866, and 1867. 

4 Articles or letters on this topic appeared frequently at this time. 


84 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [84 

fraudulent speculations, Stock Exchange gambling, bank and 
company swindling, and general cupidity, avarice, and roguery 
of a large portion of the capitalists and middle classes, all eager 
to get rich by any other than honorable and legitimate means. 1 

The pampleteers, too, agreed with the Beehive. One de¬ 
clared that the present unsatisfactory condition of every 
branch of trade and industry throughout the country was 
due to bad currency and money laws which the House of 
Commons did not tend to;—but, “were the Directors and! 
other Proprietors of the (so-called) ‘ Bank of England ’ 
losers by monetary panics, in the ratio that they have been 
gainers by them, the Public may be quite certain that 
monetary panics would not occur.” 2 Another placed the 
blame for the increase of pauperism upon the panic of 1866 
and the depression of trade which in turn was due to the 
lack of honesty and prudence in the management of the 
great public undertakings in which a large portion of the 
savings of the country was formerly invested. 3 Another 
gave his explanation of the situation: 

The working-classes, through their organ, the Beehive , are 
perfectly aware of the injury “ Monetary Panics ” periodically 
inflict upon them, often depriving them partially or wholly of 
that employment by which alone they can obtain bread for 
themselves and families; and they also well know that the cause 
of such panics are our Currency laws, commonly called Bank 
laws, which were made by the wealthy to suit their own pur¬ 
poses. If the working-classes are told upon authority that 
these laws cannot be altered because it is necessary that the 
Bank of England should have in its coffers a huge mass of gold 
coin and bullion, in order to enable the importer of foreign 

1 The quotation can be found in Blackwood's , February, 1867. 

2 Richard Dover, Progress versus Collapse (Westminster, 1869). 

‘John Noble, Free Trade, Reciprocity and the Revivers (London, 
1867), p. 38. 


THE WORKING CLASS IN THE 'SIXTIES 


85] 


85 


goods to pay his creditor in gold when the Exchanges are against 
us, they will naturally ask, Why such necessity? Why not trust 
to the lazvs of supply and demand ? Then the truth will come 
out. It is not that the law of supply and demand would not 
always enable the importer of foreign goods to obtain what¬ 
ever gold he required, but he might occasionally have to pay 
for it, in which case he would have to charge a higher price to 
his wealthy customers, whether lords or ladies, who would 
therefore have to pay more for their expensive wines, laces, 
silks, velvets, and other luxuries; and, rather than such an 
event, it is far better that the country should be periodically 
inflicted with “ Monetary Panics,” and the working-classes de¬ 
prived wholly or in part of that employment by which alone 
they can obtain bread for themselves and families! How long 
can such injustice prevail? 1 


So important was the economic aspect of the question that 
the opponents of Reform' effectively argued that the work¬ 
ing classes would use their political power, when obtained, 
for their own selfish economic and social interests. Thus 
the Times summed up the feeling of the pessimists, although 
it professed not to take this gloomy view itself: 

Almost universally without the first elements of political knowl¬ 
edge it is readily concluded that they will use the franchise for 
the objects which animal life or their social condition will 
enable them to appreciate. They are hard-worked and ill-fed, 
so their cry at the hustings will be for eight hours instead of 
nine, and sixpence more a day. They are envious, and they 
will want to have divided among them the land and the incomes 
of their more fortunate neighbors. They want employment 
so that they will ask for infinite paper money, to keep up 
enterprise. 2 


1 Rigby Wason, The Currency Question (London, 1869), pp. 24 and 25. 
•The Times, May 23, 1867. 


86 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [86 

Indeed, to those students of History who believe that 
many of the agitations for reforms, which stirred England 
at various times during the nineteenth century, were brought 
about by a discontent arising from economic conditions, the 
foregoing pages will tend to suggest that here again a period 
of stress had decisive influence upon the popular attitude 
toward Parliamentary Reform. 


CHAPTER III 


The Popular Attitude Toward Reform 

The demand for Reform “ from without” had been of 
little importance during the early ’sixties. The bill of i860 
had to be abandoned and no new bill was brought in by the 
Government because of the apathy of the nation. So' said 
Lord John Russell. In a speech in Parliament in March, 
1861, and again in a speech at Blairgowrie in September, 
1863, he admitted that a strong feeling existed in the 
country against changes in the system of representation. 1 
Lord Palmerston, in explaining his opposition to Mr. Locke 
King’s County Franchise bill of 1864, said, 2 “ I hardly 
think it was expedient for my honorable friend to bring 
forward his bill at the present juncture, for it is plain that 
there does not now exist the same anxiety for organic 
change that was observable some time ago.” 

Those who were indifferent to Parliamentary Reform 
could point out that in i860 there were no petitions in its 
favor; in 1861 there were fourteen, signed by 2225 persons; 
in 1862 there were two, signed by 1097; an d in 1863 there 
were no petitions. 3 The middle classes were in power; 
their political and economic wants were satisfied and they 
troubled themselves very little about the working classes. 

1 Vide Hansard, vol. clxi, pp. 1920-1926, and J. H. Murchison, The 
Conservatives and “Liberals,” p. xi. 

’Joseph Irving, The Annals of Our Time (London, 1875)* 

3 Cf. Mr. Whiteside’s speech, April 13, 1864, in Hansard, vol. clxxv, 
P- 331 . 

87 ] 


87 


88 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[88 

And even these “ humbler neighbors,” 1 as they were called, 
were fairly prosperous'—for them. Agitation was checked, 
however, not only because of the influence of good harvests, 
increasing trade, and rising wages, but also because of the 
influence of Lord Palmerston, 2 that typical mid-Victorian 
gentleman who was at the head of the Liberal ministry. 
He and Lord Derby, leader of the Opposition, were in 
agreement upon this question of Reform; both were willing 
to “ rest and be thankful.” Lord John Russell summed up 
the situation as follows: 

With regard to domestic policy I think we [i. e., Liberals under 
Palmerston and Conservatives under Derby] are all pretty 
much agreed, because the feeling of the country and of those 
who have conducted great reforms is very much like that of a 
man, who, having made a road in your own [Scottish] high¬ 
lands, put a stone on the top mountain with an inscription, 
“ Rest and be thankful.” That seems to be very much like our 
feeling, not that there are not other roads to make and other 
mountains to climb; but it seems to be the feeling of the coun¬ 
try, in which I cannot help joining, that our own policy is rather 
to “ rest and be thankful ” than to make new roads. 3 

The nation at large was conversant with this attitude of 
Lord Palmerston and knew that there was little chance for 
an agitation to be successful, but here and there respectable 
newspapers and magazines 4 and even men 5 of good stand¬ 
ing at times averred that some of the more intelligent work¬ 
ingmen were anxious for the franchise; anything like 

^erm of Westminster Review, April, 1865, p. 529. 

*Cf. views of Quarterly Review, July, 1865. 

3 Murchison, op. cit., p. xi. Vide, also, iSir Spencer Walpole, The 
Life of Lord John Russell, 2 vols. (London, 1889, 2nd edition), vol. ii, 
p. 402. 

4 Letter to the Times, May 11, 1865; Frazer’s, August, 1865. 

5 Reference to Messrs. Baines, Locke King, Bright, Forster, etc. 




Sg] THE POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM 89 

household suffrage was not taken seriously by either of the 
great parties. 

In the spring of 1865 there were a number of Reform 
meetings held in various cities of the Kingdom, probably 
with the purpose of trying to commit one party or the other 
on this question in the coming elections. Some of the speak¬ 
ers criticized 1 the House of Commons and the leaders of 
both parties as having failed to fulfill the pledges solemnly 
given to the country six years before; others made known 
no lesser expectations than universal manhood suffrage and 
the redistribution of seats. In an effort to make the whole 
question as important as possible the Reformers organized 
the Reform League under the leadership of which most of 
the agitation for the next two or three years was to be car¬ 
ried on. The following notice giving definite information 
as to the purpose and organization of the League appeared 
in the London Times for February 21, 1865 : 

A new Reform Association—For some weeks past negotiations 
have been on foot between a body of influential gentlemen, 
members of Parliament and others, and several of the leaders 
among the working classes in the metropolis, for the purpose 
of ascertaining whether the working men are really desirous 
of obtaining the franchise, and, if so, whether the existing 
organizations of the working classes could be made available 
for furthering a measure of Reform which would accomplish 
that object. Among other gentlemen who have taken a deep 
interest in the movement may be enumerated the following 
members of Parliament: Messrs. Cobden, Bright, Forster, etc., 
and also several well-known public men, such as Mr. Samuel 
Morley, Mr. E. Beales, Mr. T. B. Potter, Mr. Mason Jones, 
etc. These gentlemen state that they are prepared, if they 
see the working classes themselves moving earnestly in the 

1 Vide especially the Reform meeting at Leeds, an account of which 
is to be found in the Times, February 2, 1865. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


9 0 


[90 


matter, to put down a sum of £5,000 to carry on the agitation. 
The result of these negotiations has been the sending out by a 
committee of working men of a circular to upwards of 250 
representative men among the working classes, comprising the 
secretaries and officers of the principal trades, friendly, and 
other working-class organizations, requesting them to attend 
a meeting at St. Martin’s-hall, on Tuesday evening next. 
Should that meeting respond to the appeal thus made, a deputa¬ 
tion will be appointed from it to meet the gentlemen above 
named on an early day to make the necessary arrangements 
for establishing the association, which it is intended shall be 
inaugurated by a great public meeting at one of the large metro¬ 
politan halls, over which a leading Liberal member will preside, 
supported by a large number of the advanced Liberal members 
of Parliament. An important part of the programme will be 
the appointment of sub-committees in each metropolitan 
borough, whose especial duty it will be to watch the election 
and the candidates who may offer themselves, with a view to 
obtain the return of members who will honestly carry out the 
principles of the association, vis., the extension of the fran¬ 
chise to the working classes. The exact basis on which the 
association is to be formed will be settled at the delegate meet¬ 
ing to take place as above, but whether it be that of a residen¬ 
tial manhood suffrage, or household and lodger franchise, or a 
less extended suffrage, one of the principles of the association 
is to be that it will accept any installment of Reform that may 
be offered, from whatever party it may proceed. Should the 
proposed association be successfully established, it cannot fail 
in exercising considerable influence over the future of Reform, 
and in all probability become a power that no Goverment, to 
what party so ever it may belong, will be able to despise with 
impunity. 1 


After being formed, the association did not exercise much 
influence during the year 1865, and the Reformers were 


Quoted from Observer. 


91] THE POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM g l 

unable to get either party to pledge itself at the election, al¬ 
though a meeting of delegates, held at Manchester in May, 
passed resolutions expressing “ dissatisfaction with the pres¬ 
ent state of the people as a gross injustice to the working 
classes, regret that the Government has abandoned the Re¬ 
form question, and an opinion that Reformers throughout 
the country should support at the next general election only 
such candidates as are favorable to the introduction of a 
comprehensive measure of Reform in the next session of 
Parliament.” 1 

Palmerston apparently was influenced no more by the 
Reform League than he had been by the friends of the 
Baines’ bill of 1865. This bill, proposing the reduction of 
the borough franchise, if of any effect, hurt the cause of 
Reform. The author of it himself admitted the apathy out 
of doors; he urged, however, that the question be discussed 
and settled in time of calm “ lest some day it should take 
the shape of a demand for universal suffrage.” 2 Other 
speakers corroborated his statements with respect to the 
attitude of the nation, and the majority of the House agreed 
with Mr. Horsman when this gentleman, although avow¬ 
ing a sincere desire that the working classes should have 
some voice, urged that the votes of mere numbers never 
ought to and never should govern the country. 

The first election for the new Parliament took place on 
the eleventh of July and on the twenty-fifth the Times was 
able to announce that the “ restful and thankful ” nation 
had given Palmerston 367 Liberal as against 290 Con¬ 
servative members. The Annual Register thought this elec¬ 
tion noteworthy for its lack of excitement; the Times 3 
thought it memorable for the evidences of national pros- 

^he Times, May 16, 1865. 

2 Hansard, vol. clxxviii, pp. 1371 et seq. 

8 The Times, July 4, 1865, editorial. 


92 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[92 

perity and the contentment which its history would afford. 
In fact there had been no definite issue. As for Reform— 
“ willingly or unwillingly ” said the Quarterly Review / 
“ they (the Palmerston Administration) have brought the 
.... movement to' a deadlock, and have made it almost 
impossible for anyone who comes after them for a con¬ 
siderable number of years to call it into activity again.” 
Mr. John Bright declared that Reform should be postponed 
till the close of the official life of Lord Palmerston, “ the 
only man in the Liberal party able and willing to betray 
it 1 2 a part of this statement Mr. Bright within a year 
found to be untrue. It must be added that many members 
in election speeches had given individual pledges to take 
up the question. 

Lord Palmerston died on October 18, 1865, and with 
the formation of the Russell-Gladstone ministry there 
seemed to be hope for the Reformers. It was thought in 
some quarters 3 that Russell would have to do something lest 
he forfeit a long-standing pledge, and Gladstone was felt to 
be in favor of Reform. In 1864 the latter had uttered the 
fated words of which mention has been made in a preceding 
chapter: “ I venture to> say that every man who is not pre¬ 
sumably incapacitated by some consideration of personal 
unfitness or of political danger, is morally entitled to come 
within the pale of the constitution.” Vague as were these 
words, and qualified as they had been by a protest against 
sudden or violent or excessive or intoxicating change, never¬ 
theless they caused distrust among the Conservatives and the 
Whigs. 4 Now that the retarding influence of Palmerston 

1 Quarterly Review, July, 1865. 

*Cf. the Times, September 20, 1865, editorial. 

* Cf. Frazer’s, June, 1866, pp. 683 and 684. 

4 Vide John Morley, The Life of William Ewart Gladstone, vol. ii, 
pp. 126-131. 


93 ] THE POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM 93 

was gone, what might Gladstone not do? And his defeat 
in 1865 at Oxford and his election from Lancashire would 
tend all the more to unmuzzle him. Hence the Reformers 
claimed him as their own and quoted his words again and 
again. They were encouraged, too, by the addition to the 
Government of Mr. Forster and Mr. Goschen, two men of 
the Radical wing. 1 

Reform meetings held in the latter part of November and 
during December, compared with those held one year later, 
appear to have been very unimportant, although enough 
interest was shown to warrant the statement of the Times 
on the eighteenth of December, that the question of Reform 
seemed to have revived, 2 —a statement later contradicted. A 
meeting held in London on the twelfth of December, is im¬ 
portant as showing what reforms the working men expected 
to result from a wide extension of the franchise. 3 Here 
as at many of the meetings of the following two months 
manhood suffrage was demanded, but few really had hopes 
that such a request would be listened to. As Mr. Tom 
Plughes said at a Reform meeting at Lambeth: “ They might 
just as well ask for the whole loaf, and they would be more 
likely to get half of it than if they went for only two- 
thirds.’’ 4 Some of the speakers, however, did not want the 
full loaf or even the two-thirds. Members of the House of 
Commons of the Liberal or Radical denomination who 
were trying to guide or to make public opinion, gave various 
solutions to the Reform problem in their “ out of door ” 
speeches. The meetings went on, without impressing the 

1 The Times, November 25, 1865, editorial. Vide the London Review, 
October 12, 1867, for a life of Goschen. 

2 The Times, December 18, 1865, editorial. 

3 Cf. infra, pp. 130-133, for a complete discussion of this topic. 

4 The Times, January 13, 1866. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


94 


[94 


Government very much, however, for in the Queen’s speech 
Reform was the last of more than twenty subjects and the 
two sentences about it were very vague: the question had 
been “ ushered in with the modesty proper to an experience 
of many failures,” 1 and if we are to believe the Times, a 
franchise bill, 2 which was brought in on March 12, 1866, 
conservative as it could well be, produced no applause: “We 
have listened in vain for the faintest note of approval, or 
the contrary or bare recognition from the provinces. . . . 
Not even the workingmen make the least sign, or seem to be 
aware that they are to be presented with a very considerable 
slice of the British Constitution.” 3 The Saturday Review 4 
expressed a like opinion; “ The organs of the Govern¬ 
ment may put as good a face on the matter as they like, 
but the fact is that the Reform Bill has fallen dead. 
The country does not care for it an atom. There is no 
loud outcry against it, but there is scarcely a whisper of 
approval of it.” The Radicals claimed there was a popular 
desire for the bill. Their arguments may be seen from Mr. 
Bright’s Manchester speech of March 27, 1866: 


These gentlemen who oppose this Bill tell us in the House of 
Commons and some of their newspapers tell us outside, that 
really nobody wants this Bill, and that a few men who have 
objects of their own to serve are constantly talking about it, 
but that the great body of the people have really no interest in 
it whatever. They said exactly the same of the Bill of 1831. 
I stated in the House of Commons the other night that in the 
years from 1821 to 1831 there were scarcely any petitions pre¬ 
sented to Parliament in favor of Parliamentary Reform, and 
yet in the year 1831 the whole thing was an explosion. The 
House of Commons was terror-stricken, and men of great 

1 The Times , February 8, 1866, editorial. 

2 For detailed information on the bill, cf. infra, pp. 142-3. 

3 Ibid., March 20, 1866, editorial. 

4 The Saturday Review, March 24, 1866. 


95] THE POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM 93 

families were almost hiding themselves from popular indigna¬ 
tion. What do these gentlemen want now ? Are they content 
to be taught by great and peaceful meetings, and by the pre¬ 
sentation of great petitions, or do they want something more? 1 

Bright then urged the holding of monster meetings and 
elsewhere 2 declared that “if Parliament Street from Char¬ 
ing Cross to the venerable Abbey were filled with men seek¬ 
ing a Reform Bill, .... these slanderers of their country¬ 
men would learn to> be civil if they did not learn to love 
freedom.” 

As a matter of fact, the Council of the Reform League 
determined to support the Government measure, and the 
various Reform meetings held during the Easter recess, 
many of them under the auspices of the Liberals, it is true, 
also passed resolutions favoring the measure but expressing 
a desire for greater reductions in qualifications. It seemed 
for a long time during the first weeks of April that the agi¬ 
tation was to become general. Meetings were held 3 in 
Edinburgh (April 2), in Sheffield (April 2), in West 
Riding of Yorkshire (April 3), in Burnley (April 3), in 
Rochdale (April 4), in Lambeth (April 4), in Hanley 
(April 4), Exeter (April 4), Manchester (April 5), Liver¬ 
pool (April 5), and so on. Mr. Forster, Mr. Bright, and 
Mr. Gladstone made important speeches. The last named 
in the famous speeches at Liverpool (April fifth and sixth) 
declared that the Government was staking its' political 
character on the adoption of the bill in its main provisions, 
that the trumpet had been blown with no uncertain sound, 
that the Rubicon had been passed, the bridges broken and the 
boats burned behind them. 

1 The Times, March 28, 1866. 

2 In a letter to a Reform meeting at Birmingham; vide Annals of Our 
Time, March 26, 1866. 

’Following announcements in issues of the Times. 


g 6 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [96 

The result, gentlemen [said he] is in other hands than ours. . . . 
I can’t doubt from the extraordinary working and movement 
of society that there is on the part of the masses of the com¬ 
munity a forward and onward movement, which forward and 
onward movement will be perfectly safe and harmless, and not 
only safe and harmless, but infinitely profitable if we only deal 
with it wisely and in time. But read the signs of the times. 
The voice that once spoke as never man spoke rebuked those 
in authority who could not read the signs of the times. Does 
any man really suppose that the political limit signified by the 
number ten is to be forever and ever, from generation to gener¬ 
ation, the limit within which all are to enjoy, but beyond which 
every man is to be deprived the enjoyment of the franchise? 
Certainly not. The defeat of the Bill, what would it procure ? 
—an interval, but not an interval of repose; an interval of fever, 
an interval of expectation, an interval for the working of those 
influences which might possibly arise even to the formidable 
dimensions of political danger. Let the great English nation 
be wise, and be wise in time. 1 

The audience cheered him to the echo' not only upon the ex¬ 
pression of this sentiment but also upon his attack 2 on a 
conservative section of the Liberals called the Adullamites s 
who refused to follow him in the question of Reform and 
especially upon an invective against the Adullamite leader, 
Robert Lowe. 

But the enthusiasm which the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
attempted to kindle by his visit to Liverpool seemed, like 
a fire of tow, hastily lit and soon extinguished. Such was 
the opinion of the Times. From: the middle of April until 
the middle of June there were scarcely any Reform meetings. 
A graph roughly representing the agitation for Reform as 

1 The Times, April 7, 1866. 

2 On the previous day. 

'More detailed information on the Adullamites and their leader is 
given in the next chapter. 


97 


97] the popular attitude toward reform 

shown by the number and enthusiasm of the meetings held 
from the summer of 1865 to the summer of 1866, would 
give a curve rising gradually during the late autumn of 1865, 
keeping to a level during January and February, 1866, fall¬ 
ing slightly the first of March, rising again toward the mid¬ 
dle of the month and really gaining respectable height dur¬ 
ing the first weeks of April, after which it would fall rapidly 
and remain low in the scale until the first of July. 

In fact the demand from without had not been great 
enough to produce the desired effect upon the House of 
Commons, 1 although it looked for a time as if the meetings 
of the Easter recess might be the beginning of a real agita¬ 
tion. The failure to impress the Conservatives and Adul- 
lamites was due to several things: the agitation had not 
been carried on for any considerable time; enthusiasm at 
the meetings took the form of praises for greater reduc¬ 
tions of qualifications rather than for anything which the 
bill contained; the Conservative press 2 felt that Liberal 
leaders were getting up the agitation and that noted speak¬ 
ers such as Bright and Gladstone took people to the meet¬ 
ings rather than any desire on the part of the working 
class to force Reform; the all but universal opposition 
of the London press 31 and the censorious tone of London 
-society counterbalanced favorable comments upon the bill. 
Moreover, a large number of the recently elected members 
of the House were quite unwilling to pass a measure which 
would have the effect of causing them to appear before their 
constituents and of exposing them to the risk and cost of, 

l Cf. Fortnightly Review, vol. vii, p. 745 (Molesworth’s article); 
Blackwood's, February, 1866, pp. 147-148; Fortnightly Review, vol. v, 
June 15 and July 15, 1866. 

2 Cf. Blackwood's, February, 1866, and letter to the Times, February 
3, 1866. 

* Cf. Edinburgh Review, April, 1866. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


98 


[98 


a contested election. Another cause, economic at least in 
part, would tend to make many members oppose change: the 
working class, it was felt, 1 wanted the franchise for a reason 
other than that of merely casting a vote, and their interests 
might not always coincide with the interests of capitalists 
and landowners. The workingman could see the need 
of great improvement in governing the country; for in 
spite of the prosperity of the early ’ sixties already 
described, scenes of misery were not few or hard to be 
found. As the Fortnightly Review pointed out, 2 one had 
only to wander from the lace makers of Devonshire to the 
strawplaiters of Hertfordshire, the glovers of Worcester¬ 
shire, and the hosiers of Nottinghamshire to find the usual 
close rooms, long hours, inadequate payment, bad food, 
disregard of physical wants, undue pressure, and everything 
calculated to make life miserable. In the town, in the coun¬ 
try, on the surface and beneath it, one would see a dread¬ 
ful catalogue of human sufferings; poor wretched creatures 
laboring among the mineral deposits in danger of death 
alike from poisonous vapors and from lack of proper safe¬ 
guards; children working in glass foundries day and night 
without intermission, or mixing in gangs in the fields under 
the eye of a ruffian taskmaster. The member of Parlia¬ 
ment might console himself over the situation with the 
philosophy of an Emerson or the theories of a Ricardo or 
Malthus; the workingman as a lawmaker would mend mat¬ 
ters. For instance, Mr. Odger, shoemaker, speaking at 
the National Reform League meeting at St. Martin’s Hall 
a fortnight before Christmas, 1865. declared that if the 
working classes were given the vote they would do away 
with the present class legislation and would see “ that the 


1 Vide, infra, the arguments presented by the Conservatives and Adul- 
lamites against the bill. 

2 Fortnightly Review, vol. iv, article by Edward Wilson. 


99] THE POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM 99 

poor man’s daughter, who was worked 12, 14, and 16 hours 
a day, should have time to go abroad and view the face of 
nature. They would prevent the poor man’s child from 
going in early life into mines and workshops before it was 
educated. They would prevent the poor agricultural laborer 
from working for 8 s. per week.” 1 Professor Beesly 2 at a 
Reform meeting held in St. Martin’s Hall, April n, 1866, 
instanced as grievances the unequal pressure of indirect tax¬ 
ation on the workingmen, who paid 4^. a week out of 2cw. 
wages, the operation of the game laws, the punishment of 
servants for breach of contract, the excessive expenditure 
on the army and navy as compared with the education grant, 
the treatment of the poor in workhouses, and the monopoly 
of land by large proprietors. These were grievances which 
a reformed Parliament might be expected to' redress, but 
which were not likely to be redressed under the present 
system. 

The middle class and the skilled workingmen, however, 
were prosperous and the lot of the unskilled workingmen 
was improving, 3 4 notwithstanding these complaints which 
could have been made during any period from 1815, so 
that the need for social reform was not pressing enough to 
keep an agitation going. “ If there were distress in the 
country ” said the Fortnightly Review / “ we cannot say 
what might be the effect of representations made to' the 
working classes that the extension of the franchise would 
improve their condition, but as wages are rising, and no 
political grievances are felt, the working classes have cer¬ 
tainly not hitherto responded to any efforts to rouse them.” 

1 From the Quarterly Review. January, 1866, pp. 264 et seq .; also to be 
found in the Times. 

*The Times, April 12, 1866. 

8 Blackwood’s, February, 1866, p. 144. 

4 Fortnightly Review, vol. iv, “ Public Affairs,” p. 756. 


IOO 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[IOO 

The North British Review of March, 1866, pointed out that 
people thought Reform was bound to come but that if any¬ 
thing should occur to disturb that confidence, those who' 
maintained the indifference of the people would find them¬ 
selves unpleasantly startled from their fond belief. 1 And 
it so happened that the arguments of the conservative 
Liberals who go by the name of Adullamites against any 
extension of the suffrage and the defeat of the bill with the 
consequent resignation of the Liberal leaders did help to 
shatter the indifference at about the same time that the 
economic condition of the country was rapidly growing 
worse. 

With the fall of the ministry the agitation was renewed. 
The Adullamites, ably led by Lowe, had caused the defeat 
of the bill; their arguments against the present bill were 
equally applicable to> any change in franchise qualifications 
whatsoever, and Lowe’s speeches so successful in their im¬ 
mediate purpose were used by the Reformers with great 
advantage in arousing the working classes to demand their 
rights. Mr. Frederic Harrison, 2 writing for the Fort¬ 
nightly Review , 3 expressed the opinion that full justice had 
not been done to the speeches of Mr. Lowe. “ In our 
memory,” he wrote, “ it has not been known that the argu¬ 
ments of one independent speaker have accomplished so 
much; checked the current of constitutional development, 
roused the upper classes to resistance, terrified the middle 
classes into hesitation, and stung the working classes into 
action.” 

Frazer's declared the spirit of the unenfranchised classes 
had been kindled by Mr. Lowe’s “ contumelious speeches, 
so delightful to the Tory part of his audience.” 4 The 

1 The North British Review, March, 1866, p. 232. 

2 Frederic Harrison wrote much in favor of trade unions. 

9 Fortnightly Review, vol. vii, p. 261. 

4 Fraser’s, November, 1866, “Why we want a Reform Bill,” p. 559. 


IO i] THE POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM IO i 

speakers at the meetings of June and July and later were 
bitter against the Adullamites. At a conference of the 
National Reform Union, 1 an association largely of the 
middle classes but originating at the suggestion of the work¬ 
ingmen of Leeds for a platform upon which the two* classes 
could co-operate, a Mr. Partridge gave a typical speech 2 in 
which he declared that the obstacles to their representation 
were not the Tories, who were their “ natural enemies/’ 
nor the Liberals, who were their friends, but “ this mongrel 
party, which was neither for nor against them, but which 
was for itself always and only.” 3 It was remarked that the 
bill of 1832 had been passed under circumstances by no 
means peaceful, that the French Revolution ought to> serve 
as a warning to the reactionaries. Lowe, in fact, and others 
of his group received disapproving letters 4 from their con¬ 
stituents, since, without a dissolution, no other means of 
expression was possible. 

The renewed agitation was manifest by the important 
meetings of early July—one of July 2, 1866, in Trafalgar 
Square, and one of July 5, 1866, at Birmingham!. Seven 
or eight thousand persons were present at Birmingham 
where resolutions were passed against the Tories and Adul¬ 
lamites and in favor of a dissolution. There was an ex¬ 
pression of want of confidence in any ministry Derby might 
form. At the demonstration at Trafalgar Square there was 
present a large number of well-behaved people; Mr. Beales, 
head of the Reform League, spoke of the “ thunder of the 
crowd’s gratitude to such real patriots as Mr. Gladstone 
and Mr. Bright.” Mr. Lucraft, a Hoxton journeyman and; 

1 Held June 22, 1866, at Manchester. 

*To be found in the Times, June 25, 1866. 

3 It was sometimes stated that Lowe was anxious for the downfall 
of the Liberals because he had been given no position in the cabinet. 

4 These can be found in the Times. 


102 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[ 102 

reformer, gave the rallying cry of “ Reform, and Gladstone 
and Liberty.” Later in the evening “ Lucraft and his mob,” 
—8,ooo of them—marched with due enthusiasm to Glad¬ 
stone’s house, but found only the ladies at home. Such 
meetings, however, seem unimportant when compared with 
the Hyde Park incident. 

The Hyde Park affair, described with considerable detail 
in almost every English history of the nineteenth century, 
was a somewhat spectacular incident about which a great 
number of particulars have been given, some true, a number 
not to be verified, most of them unimportant compared with 
the effect of the “ riot.” 1 When the Reform League an¬ 
nounced that a great demonstration in favor of the exten¬ 
sion of the suffrage was to be held in Hyde Park, Mr. 
Walpole, the Home Secretary of the Conservative Govern¬ 
ment, which had recently come into power, had the Com¬ 
missioner 2 of Police of the Metropolis insert in the news¬ 
papers a notice to the effect that no such meeting would be 
allowed. It was stated that the meeting was illegal, would 
lead to disorderly conduct and would endanger public peace. 
Mr. Beales in reply said that the meeting would be held unless 
he were shown the law by which the Commissioner had 
authority to prohibit it. The Reformers regretted exceed¬ 
ingly, they said, that the Home Secretary was determined 
to put himself “ in a position of wanton antagonism ” to 
the people, but were willing to put the blame of any pos¬ 
sible collision between themselves and the police—a collision 
which they promised would take place if the meeting were 
forcibly interfered with—upon the Home Secretary. 

Accordingly on the twenty-second of July, the Reform¬ 
ers marched 3 in goodly numbers to Hyde Park, found the 

1 Walpole’s History of Twenty-five Years gives a very good account. 

’Sir Richard Mayne. 

*Vide Annual Register, chronicle, July, 1866. 


103] THE POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM I0 3 

gates closed and sixteen or eighteen hundred police waiting 
for them. Mr. Beales formally demanded admittance. This 
was refused, of course, and having raised the legal question 
desired, he with the other leaders proceeded to Trafalgar 
Square, there to hold the program as prearranged. The 
greater part of the crowd, however, did not follow the 
leaders but finding the railings around the park none too 
strong began to push them over, 1 and rushed upon the for¬ 
bidden ground. Thereupon began a scuffle with the police, 
resulting in a few injuries on both sides. Some “ roughs ” 
were a little troublesome; all in all about eighty or ninety 
persons were taken into custody. Those who were bold 
enough to make speeches after their entrance into the park 
were not interrupted by the police. As a matter of fact 
little damage was done except to the shrubbery and the 
flower beds. 

But the influence of the Hyde Park affair was very great. 
The Times protested that such a gathering was a display of 
numbers to overawe the Legislature and the ruling classes, 
that it was useless for political discussion but might easily 

1 Justin McCarthy in his History of Our Own Times, 2 vols. (New 
York, 1880), vol. ii, p. 344, gives the following account: “Emerson has 
said that every revolution, however great, is first of all a thought in the 
mind of a single man. One disappointed Reformer lingering in Park 
Lane, with his breast against the rails, as the poetic heroine had hers, 
metaphorically, against the thorn, became impressed with the idea that 
the barrier was somewhat frail and shaky. How would it be, he vaguely 
thought for a moment, if he were to give an impulse and drive the 
railing in? What, he wondered to himself, would come of that? The 
temptation was great. He shook the rails; the rails begun to give way. 
Not that alone, but the sudden movement was felt along the line, and 
into a hundred minds came at once the grand revolutionary idea which 
an instant before had been the thought in the mind of one hitherto un¬ 
important man. A simultaneous impulsive rush, and some yards of 
railing were down, and men in scores were tumbling, and floundering, 
and rushing over them/’ Unfortunately, McCarthy has not seen fit to 
:give to the world the name of his hero of original thought. 


104 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[104 

produce serious danger to the public peace, that finally, ex¬ 
cepting some decent people, it was a mass of the coarsest 
mob. 1 The Reformers, on the other hand, claimed that the 
ministry, by employing the police to prevent forcibly the 
working classes from a peaceable meeting in Hyde Park at 
which they wished to> complain of their exclusion from the 
suffrage, had shown that it possessed all the old spirit of 
Toryism and distrust of the people and hence had forfeited 
all claims to the confidence and support of the country. 2 In 
fact the president of the Reform League seems to have 
outgeneraled his opponents completely. After the Home 
Secretary had forbidden the use of the park without any 
specific right to do so, the attempt of Beales to hold the meet¬ 
ing in spite of opposition was bound to advertise the Reform 
cause. Had the Reformers been kept out of the park, a cry 
against class government would immediately have been 
taken up by every association in the country; had the crowd 
been allowed in after various notices had forbidden the 
meeting, the Government’s surrender would have been de¬ 
monstrative of the force of the people’s will and hence would 
have been suggestive of further fulfillments of their de¬ 
mands, As it was, the best possible happened for Mr. 
Beales. The people after being refused admittance, had 
managed to get their demands in a semi-forcible manner 
but with responsibility unfixed. The Reformers could point 
to victory; the upper classes had the power only to' decry 
the act as violence. What, in fact, could be done by the 
Government in such a situation? The police had been un¬ 
able to control the people; the Chief Commissioner of 
Police, on the evening which succeeded the disturbance, had 

^he Times, July 24, 1866, editorial. 

8 The Times, July 31, 'Reform Teague demonstration in Agricultural 
Hall (July 30, 1866) ; the Times, July 25, London Working Men’s As¬ 
sociation; the Times, July 28, editorial from Pali Mall Gazette, etc. 


105] THE P0PULAR attitude toward reform I0 5 

even asked that troops be held in readiness for him. 1 The 
Reform League attempted to help matters by agreeing to 
get the mob from the Park upon the understanding that the 
legal right of meeting therein should be tested. But the 
issuance of its placard, without authority, that there should 
be no further attempt to hold “ a meeting in Hyde Park ex¬ 
cept only by arrangement with the Government, on Monday 
afternoon, July 30,” connoted that the Home Secretary had 
consented, as the price of the League’s assistance, to concede 
the whole principle by allowing a meeting. Mr. Walpole 
because of this unfortunate incident was almost driven from 
office! 2 Reform had been brought before the country in a 
startling manner. Mr. Beales is authority ® for the state¬ 
ment that there was a general feeling prevalent throughout 
the country that the events of the last month had done more 
to hasten the progress of Reform than all the exertions of 
the last thirty years. 

There can be no doubt as to the influence of the League 
after the Hyde Park affair. In the first place it was able 
to keep going a series of monster meetings, and in the second 
place it entered into an alliance with the trade unions. 4 

1 Walpole, History of Twenty-five Years, vol. ii, p. 175. 

2 Ibid., pp. 175 and 176. Mr. Walpole was the private secretary to his . 
father, the Home Secretary, in 1866, and was in closest communication 
with him. Further data on the mistake of the leaders of the Reform 
League in issuing the placard may be found in George Jacob Holyoake, 
Sixty Years of an Agitator's Life, 2 vols. (London, 1900, 4th edition), 
vol. ii, chap. xcii. 

3 Cf. the Times, August 16, 1866. 

4 Sidney and Beatrice Webb in the History of Trade Unionism 
(London, 1911, new edition), pp. 223, 224, and 231, emphasize the in¬ 
fluence of the “Junta/’ an informal cabinet of five trade-union leaders 
who lived in London and were in constant communication with one an¬ 
other, toward having the trade unions agitate for political Reform, even 
in spite of “ a strong traditional repugnance to political action.” Un¬ 
der the influence of the “Junta,” the London Trades council “enthus¬ 
iastically threw itself into the demonstration ” in favor of Reform in 


I0 6 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [ io 6 

The great demonstrations of the autumn of 1866 were 
tried out first “ in the provinces.” On the twenty-seventh of 
August there was a demonstration at Birmingham where, 
according to the reports, “ thousands and thousands ” were 
present. 1 In honor of the occasion all the nearby towns 
turned out and business in the city was stopped. Members 
of trade and co-operative societies collected at nine o’clock 
in the morning and proceeded in six divisions to> the meet¬ 
ing grounds. Here resolutions were passed in favor of 
manhood suffrage and the ballot, and expressing gratitude 
to Gladstone, Bright, Mill, and Beales. The great event at 
the evening meeting was a speech by John Bright; “ let us 
do as your forefathers did thirty-four years ago, — let us 
have associations everywhere; let every workshop and every 
factory be a Reform Association,” was his plea. 

During September there took place a great number of 
fairly well attended meetings. The Times contains data, for 
instance, as follows: September 1, Reform meeting at Bristol, 
—10,000 present; 2 September 1, Reform demonstration at 
Bolton,—3,000 present; 3 September 5, Reform meeting at 
Leeds : 4 September 10, Reform meeting at Bermondsey,— 
7,000 present ; 5 Reform demonstration at Hanley on Septem¬ 
ber 12 with 15,000 to 20,000 present; 6 and finally on Septem¬ 
ber 24, a big Reform* demonstration at Manchester. 7 The 

1866. The 'London trade unions with the exception of two small clubs, 
did not, however, join the Reform League in a corporate capacity, al¬ 
though many of the local Birmingham trade unions became directly 
affiliated with that organization. 

1 Vide the Times, August 28, 1866. 

t Cf. the Times, September 3, 1866. 

8 Ibid., September 4, 1866. 

4 Ibid ., September 7, 1866. 

5 Ibid., September 11, 1866. 

e Ibid., September 12, 1866. 

7 Ibid., September 25, 1866. 



10 y ] THE POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM lQ y 

following short summary concerning this latter meeting is 
given in the Annual Register : 

This afternoon [September 24] a meeting, supposed to be 
larger than any hitherto assembled in England, was held at 
Manchester. During the morning many local divisions 
marched into the town from the various populous districts 
around, carrying flags inscribed with the words “ National 
Reform Union,” and proceeded to the square called Camp- 
field, a center surrounded by ten acres, in which six platforms 
were erected. Notwithstanding the torrents of rain which 
continued throughout the day, the numbers assembled were 
estimated by the reporters, both of the local and of the Lon¬ 
don press, at between 100,000 and 200,000 persons. At each 
of the above sections these resolutions were carried, namely, 
1. “That this meeting protests against the perpetuation of 
class government to the exclusion of the great majority of the 
people from the franchise; refuses to allow itself to be made 
an instrument to further the means of contending parties or 
the selfish interests of any class; and pledges itself to adopt 
all means of organizing and agitating for the only just basis 
of representation — registered residential manhood suffrage 
and the ballot.” 2. “ That this meeting rejoices in the forma¬ 
tion of the northern department of the Reform League, and 
pledges its support to the executive council in the organization 
of branches throughout the north of England, and hereby de¬ 
clares its confidence in Mr. Edmund Beales and the executive 
of the Reform League in London.” 3. “ That this meeting 
tenders its warmest and most grateful thanks to the Right 
Honorable William Ewart Gladstone, John Bright, Esq., John 
Stuart Mill, Esq., and all friends of Reform who, throughout 
the late discussions in Parliament, vindicated the character 
and protected the rights of the people; and further expresses 
confidence in the honesty and ability of Mr. John Bright to 
champion the people’s cause in Parliament during the coming 
parliamentary struggle.” 1 

1 Annual Register, 1866, chronicle, pp. 137 et seq . 


108 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [ IQ g 

At the evening meeting John Bright was the principal 
speaker; so great was the crowd that only one-fourth of 
those who applied, could enter Free Trade Hall. 

On the eighth of October occurred another great Re¬ 
form meeting of the working classes—this time at Leeds. 
The weather was favorable and there were present nearly 
200,000 persons. As early as four o’clock in the morning— 
says the Annual Register 1 —came some arrivals into 1 Leeds 
from distant localities, and during the greater part of the 
forenoon every highway and byway leading into* this city 
was overrun by large or small parties of operatives, the 
majority well clad and in holiday trim—all of them hasten¬ 
ing with exuberant cheerfulness to some rendezvous which 
had been fixed upon as their rallying point. Along the 
Bradford road, as well as the roads of Dewsbury and Hali¬ 
fax, and by the country lanes leading from the many cloth¬ 
ing villages of the districts, came trooping along on foot at 
short intervals large bodies of men with music and ban¬ 
ners; for at many of the mills and workshops of Bradford! 
and the adjacent towns as well as of Leeds, there was a 
complete holiday. The procession contained some 70,000 
persons—an orderly line of men walking five abreast four 
miles long, with its marshals and musicians, with its flag- 
bearers carrying banners, mottoes and ensigns. Arriving 
at Woodhouse Moor the crowd was addressed by the 
speakers who offered the following resolutions: protest 
against and denial of the charges of venality, ignorance, 
drunkenness, and indifference to Reform brought against the 
working classes during the last session of Parliament; pled¬ 
ges of co-operation in the cause of registered residential man¬ 
hood suffrage and the ballot; acknowledgment of the ser¬ 
vices of Gladstone, Bright and Mill. At the evening meet- 

1 Annual Register, 1866, chronicle, pp. 141 et seq.; vide the Times, 
October 9, 1866. 



log] THE POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM 1Q g 

ing Mr. Forster and Mr. Bright spoke, the latter declaring 
to the assembly: “ The workingmen must combine, and 
they must subscribe a penny a week or a penny a month 
from the thousands and from the millions to raise funds that 
will enable you to carry on the most gigantic and success¬ 
ful agitation that this country has ever seen. It is mainly 
your own voice that will decide your own fate.” 1 

On the sixteenth of October there was a Reform demon¬ 
stration at Glasgow—such a demonstration as has not been 
seen since the year 1832, said the Fortnightly Review . 2 So 
large was the parade that it took two hours, to get past any 
given spot. 3 At the meeting there were the usual resolu¬ 
tions. In the evening Mr. Bright again was the chief 
speaker. Before he delivered his speech an address was 
made to> him which is highly significant as showing the 
economic and social conditions which a reformed Parlia¬ 
ment might well improve. The speaker declared: 

We dread that gulf, pauperism, the scandal of the world, amid 
unparalleled wealth, which is swallowing up our aged and 
infirm, and in which so many of our youth are abandoned to 
misery and crime. We protest against the domination of sec¬ 
tional parties, who, professing to govern for the people, have 
failed to provide education for the nation, which popular 
Governments in other lands have secured, leaving us far be¬ 
hind. We point to the wasteful expenditure which has pro¬ 
duced and fostered our dangerous national debt, sapping the 
energies of the country, and burdening it in the race of na¬ 
tions. In the city from which Smith taught we point to the 
unsatisfactory laws of banking, and the attendant paralyzing 
of our trade. We denounce the system of misgovernment in 
certain colonies. ... We protest against the present sectional 

^he Times , October 9, 1866. 

2 Fortnightly Review , vol. vi (November 15, 1866), p. 748. 

8 The Times, October 17, 1866. 


no 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[no 

representation, its restricted basis, its gross inequalities, the in¬ 
terference with tenant voters, the shameful bribery and corrup¬ 
tion. . . We seek ... to assist in solution of these great 
problems on which the future of our country depends . . . 
but warn our rulers against the continued breach of the Great 
Charter wrung from reluctant hands at Runnymede, which 
provides that the rulers “shall not deny nor delay justice to 
anyone/’ 1 

Mr. Bright, in replying, denounced the landed interests; he 
acknowledged that the class which had hitherto ruled in the 
country had failed miserably, that it reveled in power and 
wealth, while at its foot, a terrible peril for its future, lay 
a multitude which it had neglected. “ If a class has failed,” 
he shouted, “ let us try the nation. That is our faith, that 
is our cry. Let us try the nation.” 

With the exception of a demonstration at Edinburgh 2 on 
the seventeenth of November there was no great activity 
among the Reformers until the third of December, when the 
London workingmen were given a chance to show their in¬ 
terest in the question of the day. For weeks this trades’ 
Reform! demonstration had been the talk of all London. 8 
Rumor had it that 200,000 would take a part in the pro¬ 
cession, and many and various were the suggestions' sent to 
the newspapers by interested parties as to the marching and 
handling of such a crowd. As a matter of fact there were 
some 23,000 in the parade, according to the Inspector of 
Police. The members represented about fifty societies, and 
each trade or society had one or more banners. 4 Some of 
these contained mottoes of rather general application, 5 as 

1 Ibid . 

2 C/. the Times, November 19, 1866. 

8 The Times, November 30, 1866. 

4 Annual Register, 18 66 , chronicle, p. 189. 

b Cf. the Times, December 4, 1866. 



I 11 ] THE POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM j 1 1 

“Taxation without representation is tyranny”; others were 
rather piquant. The tallow chandlers had a motto “ Bright 
and Light”; the cabinetmakers, the inscriptions: “ No more 
oligarchical rule—the people are determined to be the 
cabinetmakers ”, “ Bright cabinetmakers wanted—no Adul- 
lamites need apply”; the shoemakers, an elegant boot on 
a pole, with words, “ It’s the wearer that feels where the 
shoe pinches.” The Workingmen’s Association was repre¬ 
sented by a banner with the inscription, “ to procure the 
political enfranchisement and promote the social and general 
interests of the industrial classes.” The Reformers, of 
course, had their song, the sentiment of which may be seen 
from the concluding verse: 

“ Then shout with all your might 
God save Gladstone, Beales, and Bright; 

Wave your banners, let your ranks closer form, 

And let your watchword be— 

Old England, [Liberty, 

Manhood Suffrage, Vote by Ballot and Reform.” 

The demeanor of those in procession was irreproachable; 
even the Times declared that the day’s proceedings showed 
what the sturdiest Conservative would have to admit, that 
the more intelligent mechanics were at least the equals, in 
all that constitutes good citizens, of the small shopkeepers 
who did possess the franchise. 1 

The crowd of spectators, many thousand strong in spite 
of mud, -slush, and a cold, drizzly, uncomfortable rain, 
behaved in seemly fashion, and listened good-naturedly to 
readings by some of their members. The following speech 
especially produced much merriment: 

And now, dearly beloved, the Gospel of the day is the Hyde 
Park railings and the cause of their destruction. Now it was 
shortly after the premature death of the Russell Administra- 

1 The Times, December 4, 1866. 


112 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[i 12 

tion that the Tories took office, and that a couple of chiefs of 
the tribes of the Derbyites and Disraelites laid their heads 
together to consider in what way they might . . . bamboozle 
the working man. And behold there sprang on the face of the 
earth a new race of people called Adullamites, who were like 
unto their namesakes of old, a dissatisfied and a two-faced 
people, and like the chameleon, could change their color at 
will. And their chief was a Low(e) man, from the land of 
moonrakers, and he and his colleagues were the Reformers of 
to-day and the Tories of to-morrow. And they said to the 
people, “ Behold, we are on your side,” and at the same time 
they were seeking how they might destroy their cause. 

Then followed a description of Hyde Park, of the “ passing 
away” of the rails, of the struggle with the police; and 
finally came the supplication: “ From having the Park gates 
shut against us, save us, good Walpole.” Upon the arrival 
of the procession at the Beaufort grounds, the speakers of 
the day began to give addresses. Mr. Beales declared that 
the national movement which commenced in July last in 
Trafalgar Square, and at Hyde Park, had been increasing 
in volume, in intensity, and in enthusiastic unanimity 
throughout the length and breadth of England, Scotland, 
and Ireland. He wanted manhood suffrage. A Mr. Green¬ 
ing of Manchester pointed out that the working class could 
not expect a righteous verdict from a packed jury of rich 
men whose whole interest lay in one direction and who there¬ 
fore could not do justice to the nation, even if they would. 
A Colonel Dickson stated that in France every working- 
man was enfranchised, that in Italy the case was much 
the same, and that even the tyrannical Bismarck was giving 
universal suffrage to the Prussians. 1 He said that in the 
House of Commons as at present constituted, there were 
not above a dozen men who cared a straw for Reform; the 


1 Cf. chapter i. 



H3] THE POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM II3 

members of the House were the nominees of the House of 
Lords; many of them were railway directors, lawyers, and 
bankers, but scarcely any of them represented the working 
classes. Mr. Leicester, a glassblower, spoke with consider¬ 
able vehemence: “ The question was, would they suffer those 
little-minded, decrepit, humped-backed, one-eyed scoundrels 
who sat in the House of Commons to rob and defraud them 
any longer of their rights. . . . Whether those who had 
squandered the people’s earnings like water should con¬ 
tinue to do so?” The usual resolutions in favor of regis¬ 
tered residential manhood suffrage and the ballot and thanks 
to Gladstone, Bright, and Mill were voted. 

The following evening a great in-door meeting in con¬ 
nection with the trades’ demonstration was held in St. 
James’ Hall. Admission was obtained by tickets which 
sold for five shillings, three shillings and one shilling; and 
the hall was crowded. Mr. G. Potter, 1 chairman, declared 
that he would say once and for all that if the Tory party was 
not satisfied with what had already been done, then they 
would commence the next year with something which would 
be admitted to be sufficient. 2 Mr. Bright, however, was the 
leading speaker. He asked if anyone wished the working¬ 
men of Great Britain to be driven in defense of their rights 
to the course of the Fenians—secret societies, oaths and 
drillings, arms and menace, and a threat of violence and 
insurrection, and declared that the Parliament of landowners 
and rich men either were wholly ignorant of or they wholly 
despised that great national opinion which had been exhibited 
during the last three or four months; that they were resist¬ 
ing “ until the discontent which is now so general shall be¬ 
come universal, and that which is now only a great exhibition 
of opinion may become necessarily and inevitably a great 
and menacing exhibition of force.” 

1 Mr. Potter, editor of the Beehive, was influential in trade union affairs. 

3 The Times, December 5, 1866. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


114 


[114 


Significant as was the display of interest by the working¬ 
men despite many obstacles — the state of the weather, the 
time of the year, the necessity of the loss of a day’s work 
to all those attending, the threatened discharge of em¬ 
ployees by several large firms employing thousands of work¬ 
men if they attended the demonstration (a threat which 
was reported to the committees as having been carried out 
in many instances) 1 — even more significant was the fact 
that this was the first time the trades’ societies of London 
had taken part in a political movement. Mr. Bright tells 
us 2 that he had warned workingmen eight years before 
that the time had come or would soon come when it 
would be their duty to make use of the organization of 
trade and friendly societies “ to bear upon the Government 
the united power of a just demand that “ one year only 
of the united action of the working classes, through their 
existing organization, would wholly change the aspect of the 
Reform question.” Already the trade societies had taken 
part in some of the demonstrations outside the metropolis 
and were now according to plans made some months pre¬ 
vious,® active in London. The Times stood against the unions 
as a political power, claiming that it would excite still more 
the jealousy of the middle classes “ by the prospect of a vast 
organization for political control against which they them¬ 
selves would have no power unless they resorted in turn to 
combinations unknown in our Constitutional history ”; that 
the chief cause of the postponement of Reform from year to 
year had been the tacit fear felt by the middle class of this 
very organization of the artisans. 4 It attacked Bright in no 
undecisive manner: 


x Vide letter of Robert Hartwell, secretary of demonstration com¬ 
mittee, in the Times, December 12, 1866. 

2 In his speech at the trades’ Reform meeting, December 4, 1866. 
s Cf. the Times, April 27, 1866, editorial. 

4 The Times, December 5, 1866, editorial. 


H 5 ] THE popular attitude TOWARD REFORM h 5 

Mr. Bright has taken a step which is rather the last cast of a 
gambler than the well-considered move of one who would be 
a statesman. He has invited the Trades’ Unions and Friendly 
Societies to renounce one of their first principles — to throw 
off what some thought a disguise, and openly assume a polit¬ 
ical character, with a special view to counterbalancing the in¬ 
fluence of land, wealth, and rank. At present the constitution 
of most of these Societies expressly prohibits political action, 
not only because politics are not their business, but because it 
is advisable to welcome all, whatever their opinions. 1 

And the Times was not alone in thinking that the mind of 
a nefarious superbeing had assisted in forming such an 
organization as the trade unions. It must be remembered 
that this was a period of strikes and lockouts. In October 
one 2 of a series of crimes for which Sheffield was notor¬ 
ious, had been committed in New Hereford Street of that 
city. Such events were so well advertised by press rumors 
that the isolated cases of violence and intimidation which 
were limited to certain trades in certain localities, seemed to 
be to the public, a systematic attempt on the part of trade 
unions generally to obtain their ends by violence, and “ the 
commercial objection to< industrial disputes became confused 
with the feeling of abhorrence created by the idea of vast 
combinations of men sticking at neither violence nor murder 
to achieve their ends. The Terrorism of Trade unions’ be¬ 
came a nightmare.” 8 

Such an organization not only was strongly in favor of 
Reform but was willing to be active in the cause. On 
December nineteenth a meeting of the trades’ council passed 
this resolution: 

^he Times, December 6 , 1866, editorial. 

2 An explosion of gunpowder in the house of a man who was working 
for a firm against which the saw grinders had struck. 

* Sidney and Beatrice Webb, The History of Trade Unionism, p. 240. 


1 16 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [i 16 

That in the opinion of this delegate meeting of the trades of 
London, the House of Commons has, by its treachery to the 
cause of Reform, as shown by its defeat of the late Govern¬ 
ment Bill, and more especially by the cheers and acclamations 
which followed the vicious slanders of Messrs. Lowe, Hors- 
man, Elcho, and others equally unscrupulous, lost the confi¬ 
dence of the people, and forced upon the trades’ unionists of 
Great Britain and Ireland the absolute necessity of assisting 
either in their co-operate or individual capacity, as each society 
may for itself determine, the present agitation for the en¬ 
franchisement of the working classes of this kingdom, now 
unjustly excluded by class laws, made by class-elected Parlia¬ 
ment ; and we hereby declare our sympathy with, and adhesion 
to, the principles of the Reform League as the only true basis 
of representation, and advise trades’ unionists, both in London 
and in the provinces, to aid the forthcoming demonstration 
under the auspices of the League, to be held in London on 
Monday after the opening of the next session of Parliament. 
And we further declare that while advising the great bodies 
of trades’ unionists thus to act, we have no desire to make our 
societies channels for political agitation, but to aid in settling 
a great question that has so long disturbed the social as well 
as the political relations of this country, to the detriment of 
its progress and the injury of its people. 1 

The descriptions of the demonstrations during the autumn 
and early winter of 1866 bring out three or four facts: with 
the exception of the incident at Hyde Park, the crowd had 
been orderly and good-natured. It had been a large crowd, 
too,—provided that processions of thirty thousand and 
audiences of one hundred and fifty thousand as reported be 
considered a large crowd. 2 The speech-makers had in many 
cases pointed out justly defects in the government of the 

1 The Times, December 21, 1866. The resolution was proposed by 
Mr. Allen of the Amalgamated Engineers. 

•iStuart J. iReid, Memoirs of Sir Wemyss Reid (London, 1905), p. 113, 
tells of great crowds at Reform meetings. 


Iiy] THE POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM Yl j 

country and had suggested certain remedies; a number of 
the speakers, however, had not been altogether temperate and 
had urged force to obtain demands. Finally the trade 
unions, organizations which the middle and upper classes 
feared, had joined in definite alliance with the Reform 
League and the Radicals like Bright. Thus stood matters 
at the opening of the new year. Parliament would meet in 
February with the Conservatives in office. Popular demand 
had had little influence on the treatment of the bill of 1866. 
Were the people now interested in Reform and would the 
interest thus far shown be a strong enough factor to force 
those who stood unmoved in the spring of 1866 toi bring 
in a bill ? An expression of opinion on the part of many of 
the leading magazines and newspapers, chosen somewhat at 
random, is suggestive of the answer. 

The Spectator gave its opinion: 

That puzzle . . . which in August so greatly perplexed the 
House, whether workmen do or do not desire to enter the Con¬ 
stitution, will be found to have become clear in sleep. In 
August, every one doubted, in February doubt will be a mark 
of political incapacity. The workmen do care, care so much 
that their foes have changed their tone, and instead of charg¬ 
ing them with indifference, accuse them of revolutionary fer¬ 
vor and oppressiveness. 1 

In its opinion delay was impossible. Macmillan's said: 

It has become evident that the demand for reform is more 
deeply rooted than was at first hastily supposed—that it was 
not a cry got up by demagogues, nor the fancy of obstinate 
doctrinaires and fanatics. It cannot be suppressed by a few 
cynical sneers, nor by the exclamations of those political opti¬ 
mists, who hold the simple faith that whatever is, is right— 
especially the £10 franchise. 2 

^he Spectator, February 2, 1867, p. 118. 

2 Macmillan's, April, 1867, p. 529. 


! !8 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [ i18 

The Quarterly Review f strongly against Reform,, pre¬ 
tended in January to believe that the clamor was “ the result 
of the efforts of designing demagogues ” 1 but a little later 
gave a somewhat different version: 

There can be no doubt that, as far as those who had no offi¬ 
cial reasons for passing a Reform Bill were concerned, the 
one dominant feeling of the present year has been a feverish 
anxiety to “ settle the question.” Mr. Henley, with cynical 
candor, betrayed the ignoble secret, when he acknowledged 
that a fear lest “ the pot should boil over,” was the motive 
that animated his friends. The meetings in the manufacturing 
towns, and the riots in Hyde Park, had had their effect. The 
comfortable classes had no stomach for a real struggle. Their 
hearts misgave them, indeed, about Reform; they saw in it 
ugly visions of the future—labor giving law to capital, Trades’ 
Union rules supreme, democratic Parliaments contriving a 
graduated income tax, the poor voting supplies, and the rich 
finding ways and means. . . . They had beguiled themselves 
with the belief that it was possible to hold their rights without 
a struggle; and under that impression they had talked bravely 
for a time. But when they discovered their mistake, they took 
their overthrow meekly and gave up at once. All they en¬ 
treated was that the agitation should be got rid of, and the 
question settled without delay. And Ministerial speakers 
boast of it as their great achievement that they have satisfied 
this one longing. “ They have settled the question in a man¬ 
ner so liberal as to leave no room for further agitation.” . . . 
The dullest of their antagonists perfectly understands that 
they have not yielded to argument or to sentiment; that the 
apostles of Reform who have the real credit of their conver¬ 
sion are the mobs who beat down the palings of Hyde Park 
or went out marching with bands and banners in the towns of 
the North. Any one who reads their organs in the press will 
be satisfied that there is no mistake among them upon this 


Quarterly Review , January, 1867, p. 238. 


H 9 ] THE POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM ng 

point; and indeed, they would hardly deserve credit for the 
ordinary sagacity of Englishmen if there was. 1 

The Fortnightly Review declared that “ the argument 
can never be again used that the working classes do not care 
about Reform.” 2 

The view in Frazer’s varies somewhat from the state¬ 
ments given above; it contended that one couldn’t tell just 
before the opening of the session whether Parliamentary Re¬ 
form was or was not required by the nation, i. e., whether it 
was so imperatively required as to compel or justify the 
immediate introduction of a bill; that there prevailed a vague 
notion that something must be done; but in the absence of 
any definite scheme that suited either of the great parties, 
it was a mooted point whether the question could not be ad¬ 
vantageously postponed; “ whether the House of Commons, 
having just turned out one Government for meddling with it 
m the most dainty fashion, would turn out another for not 
meddling with it at all.” 3 

Blackwood’s in discussing the subject used such arguments 
as would justify the actions of the Conservative party. 
In the December number it was remarked that Reform must 
be dealt with soon, that within the last month matters had a 
good deal changed their aspect: 

The feelings of the multitude are easily worked upon by such 
eloquence as has of late been addressed to them; and though 
the better informed among them may see that much of what 
was said is false, and a great deal more the merest clap-trap, 
still a residue abides of power enough to stir them into that 
state of dogged determination which leads to violence. 4 

1 Ibid. t October, 1867, pp. 555 and 556. 

1 Fortnightly Review, January, 1867, p. 104. 

3 Frazer's, November, 1867, pp. 658 and 659. 

4 Blackwood's, December, 1866, p. 783. 


120 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[ 120 

Blackwood’s, of course, had no use for the Reform League, 
declaring that it was a fungus of yesterday’s growth, and 
though very noxious, would have been harmless but for the 
recent adhesion to its views and principles of another body— 
the trade unions. 1 These had been converted by the manage¬ 
ment of their paid secretaries into political engines. 2 They 
were making common cause with the Reform League, and 
were walking in procession as well as meeting to hear 
speeches in support of manhood suffrage and vote by ballot. 
The transformation of trade unions into* political leagues had 
thoroughly alarmed the middle classes. 3 The blame must 
rest entirely with the three allied powers,—the Whigs, the 
Reform League, and the trade unions; the first by inciting 
the two latter to come forward; the two latter by the osten¬ 
tatious display of physical force. It said that the meetings 
held were little short of rebellion if directed to overawe 
Parliament while in session, and advised that the same treat¬ 
ment should be given to Beales and Potter as had been given 
to O’Conner. 4 The March issue claimed that shirking the 
question was impossible; that you might postpone Reform 
for a session, 5 

But what will the people say out of doors ? It would be ridic¬ 
ulous to affirm now that the working classes are indifferent 
on the subject of Parliamentary Reform. Very many among 
them may wish that it had never been mooted; very many 
more may regret that they allowed themselves to be duped 
into joining the League. There they are, however; and 
whether they like it or not, the chiefs of the party will insist 
upon their going through with the work. To postpone legis- 

l Ibid., January, 1867, p. 116. 

*Ibid., January, 1867, p. 125. 

*Ibid., p. 131. 

l Ibid., p. 132. 

* Blackwood’s, March, 1867, p. 379. 


121 ] THE POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM I2I 

lation, therefore, . . . would be tantamount to challenging the 
masses to do their worst. 1 

Finally in the May issue there was given a summary of the 
whole popular movement: 

Derby had not been a week in office, before the broadest pos¬ 
sible indications were given, that whatever his own disposition 
might be, the people were determined to have a change in the 
electoral system of the country. The formation of the Re¬ 
form League, . . . the Hyde Park riot, all showed in what direc¬ 
tion the wind was setting. Then came the recess, and with it 
Mr. Bright’s progresses, Mr. Forster’s announcements, Mr. 
Beales’s proclamations, and the coalition, under Mr. Potter’s 
guidance, of Trades-unions with the Reform League. It was 
impossible to believe, with this evidence before them, that the 
country was not in earnest in demanding a settlement of the 
Reform question. . . . The single point demanding attention 
was, How far shall we go? 2 

The Westminster Review agreed that Reform was neces¬ 
sary: 

Since the advent of Lord Derby to power the duties of Re¬ 
formers have been greatly simplified. The apathy for which 
the mass of the nation was formerly mocked has given place 
to an excitement far too intense to be allayed by palliatives. 
We do not blame the handicraftsmen for the energy they have 
displayed, nor are we astonished at the vehement language in 
which they express their feelings, and to which they give an 
attentive ear. That there should have been more appeals to 
argument and fewer threats about physical force would have 
pleased us better. . . . The agitation which now convulses Eng¬ 
land, the demonstrations which appal the timid without grati¬ 
fying the brave and wise, are the legitimate fruits of the con- 

1 Ibid., p. 387. 

7 Ibid., May, 1867. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


122 


[ 122 


duct and the speeches in which the dominant class has in¬ 
dulged during the past few years. 1 


It also stated that “ friends of the present ministry are 
satisfied that if it does not propose a measure it will be com¬ 
pelled to resign.” 2 

Finally, the Times, at the opening of Parliament, gave 
editorially its opinion upon the coming of Reform: 

We are willing to admit that if the House of Commons could 
have the needful protection, and did not consist of gentlemen 
bound to tell how they vote, it would probably shelve the sub¬ 
ject very soon. We are ready to admit that neither the landed 
nor the moneyed aristocracy wants Reform; that the middle 
class is indifferent to it; that the so-called working class only 
want it in order to strengthen their hands against their em¬ 
ployers, and that the vast mass of agricultural and unskilled 
labor no more want to see Parliament reformed than to see 
the circle squared. . . . But the question is not going by argu¬ 
ment. . . . The real state of the case is that we are on the 
eve of a battle, not of a controversy. . . . We are threatened 
with an immense combination of the Trades’ Unions that shall 
rule the political as well as the industrial action of every 
member. 3 


But, it added—the cause is a good one. 

Thus, from the consensus of opinions, it is apparent that 
the Conservatives were forced to take up the Reform ques¬ 
tion in the session of 1867. What had already taken place 
had scared the upper and middle classes, but these little acts, 
they were told, were merely dress rehearsals. 4 The Con- 

1 Westminster Review, January, 1867, p. 185. 

2 Ibid., p. 187. 

8 The Times, February 5, 1867, editorial. 

4 Cf. letter of Robert Hartwell, secretary of the demonstration com¬ 
mittee, in the Times, December 12, 1866. 


123] THE POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM 12 $ 

servatives, refusing to deal with the question, could have 
resigned, but such action would have been playing into the 
hands of the Liberals, Hence the royal speech at the open¬ 
ing of Parliament mentioned that the state of the repre¬ 
sentation of the people would receive attention. 1 

Public opinion made it necessary that the Reform question 
be taken up again and at once. The influence of the Reform 
League and kindred associations upon the legislation passed 
is quite a different question. In one sense that influence was 
very great; it marked any bill less liberal than the bill of 
1866 as unsatisfactory; but had the franchise been given to 
those paying £5 in the towns, many of the Liberal leaders in 
the associations would have been willing to repeat John 
Bright’s statement concerning the bill of 1866: “ The Bill 

is an honest Bill; and if it is the least the Government could 
offer, it may be that it is the greatest which the Government 
could carry through Parliament.” Whethejr those who 
wanted the whole loaf would have been able to keep the agi¬ 
tation going after some of the popular leaders had dropped 
out is, of course, doubtful. As it was, Disraeli did give pretty 
much the whole loaf but it cannot be said with certainty that 
he was forced to do so. Mr. Potter, speaking to Gladstone 
in behalf of a deputation of workingmen representing vari¬ 
ous organizations of London artisans, said that the London 
workingmen and their friends in the country called for a resi¬ 
dential and registered manhood suffrage, but they did not 
feel bound to stick by that demand if such concessions were 
made to them as would permit their class being represented. 2 
Another speaker said the working classes were willing to 
allow their claims for a residential and registered manhood 
suffrage to fall into abeyance for a time if lodger quali¬ 
fications of, say four or five shillings a week, were adopted— 

1 Annual Register, 1867, p. 4. 

*Cf. the Times , March 25, 1867, 


124 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[124 

a concession which was necessary inasmuch as it was next 
to impossible for workingmen in London to become house¬ 
holders. It was alsoi said that the workingmen did not want 
to keep up the agitation, and many agreed that here was no 
necessity for the secret ballot—that it would burden the bill. 
Gladstone himself was strongly in favor of substituting a 
£5 rating franchise for the borough in place of household 
suffrage. 1 But such a proposition was not regarded as 
favorable to the working class. 21 Mr. Lucraft, 3 speaking in 
July, complained that Mr. Bright and Mr. Gladstone and 
the Manchester party had been trying to do all they could 
to trip up the Government and make the bill one which 
would not enfranchise half those it now would—that the 
bill went too far for Mr. Bright and Mr. Gladstone who 
wanted the hard line, which would keep the people from the 
franchise. He said he would sooner depend upon a Tory 
Government than upon the Manchester party. 4 Another 
speaker at the meeting said that he never had any faith in 
Mr. Bright, who' had never said a word in favor of house¬ 
hold suffrage; others disagreed with this sentiment, claim¬ 
ing that Bright had helped them,—in every speech since 1859 
had always stood for household suffrage. 

On the other hand, the Reform League in February, when 
denouncing the Government scheme, had declared they were 
afraid the Liberals would accept halfway measures, in 
which case they would not stop the present agitation ; that 
the country was: behind them and they were prepared to 
fight not only the Government but the House of Commons 
itself. 5 In fact, the meetings which went on during the 

1 Vide infra, pp. 206-7. 

2 Cf. Mr. Taylor’s speech at the National Reform Union meeting, May 
10, as given in the Times, May 11, 1867. 

3 Vide supra, p. 101. 

4 The Times, July 4, 1867. 

6 C/. the Times, February 28, 1867. 


I2$] THE POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM i2 5 

spriiig of 1867 as formerly were very decided in their 
criticisms of the bill. They probably did much to educate 
the Tory party. At the Reform League demonstration in 
London, February 11, where many thousands were present, 
the usual resolutions in favor of residential and registered 
manhood suffrage and the secret ballot were passed. 1 
O’Donoghue, head of the Irish Reform League, said he had 
just come from the House of Commons and according to 
the impression left on his mind by Mr. Disraeli’s speech, the 
Tory party intended, if they could, to smuggle a Reform bill 
through the House of Commons without consulting the 
people, whereupon his audience cried, “ We shall turn them 
out.” 2 He also showed the necessity for the people of Eng¬ 
land and Ireland to unite in their efforts for Reform. As 
for the resolutions 3 which the Conservative Government 
offered early in the session, these were called by a Birming¬ 
ham Reform meeting an insult to the country, were spoken 
of by delegates of the Reform League as wholly unsuited 
to meet the exigencies of the present crisis, and by the 
Working Men’s Association as a mockery and an insult. 4 
At a Reform demonstration in Trafalgar Square (March 
2, 1867) Mr. Potter declared that they would have a meet¬ 
ing every Saturday for some weeks to come. In the course 
of his speech he said that the Tory Standard advised the 
Government to consent to a measure and 

When they found the Tory press advising household suffrage 
it showed that the working classes had screwed the Tory Gov¬ 
ernment up pretty tightly. . . . They would hold a few more 
of these meetings, and then, if they found that did not do, he 
thought they would have to suggest to the whole of the work- 

l The Times, February 12, 1867. 

* Annual Register, 1867, chronicle, p. 22. 

3 Vide infra, p. 193. 

4 This sentiment was echoed at many meetings. 


i2 6 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [ I2 6 

ing classes throughout the country a week’s cessation from 
business and . . . then he should advise all the working men 
to walk about the streets of this great metropolis day after 
day, and stop all the traffic, and stop all business, and in fact, 
render themselves a public nuisance. . . . He did not advo¬ 
cate physical force, but after the money which had been ex¬ 
pended, and the sacrifices which the working classes had made, 
to prove that they were earnest in their demands, and to show 
the justice of their being entitled to the franchise, delay was 
dangerous. 1 

The Reformers at Bradford thought the entire conduct of 
the Government on the question of Reform deserving of 
the strongest reprobation and urged the Liberal party to 
bring about the downfall of the present ministry. 2 

The Conservatives on the eighteenth of March finally 
brought in a bill based on household suffrage but with many 
fancy franchises appended and Mr. Potter at Trafalgar 
Square on the nineteenth of March called the bill political 
jugglery. 3 Here a resolution was passed “ that in the opin¬ 
ion of this meeting the Government Reform bill is a mock¬ 
ery and insult to the people, so bad and vicious in principle 
as to be incapable of being satisfactorily amended in com¬ 
mittee; this meeting, therefore, trusts it will not be allowed 
to pass a second reading, as to do SO' would be so much 
time thrown away.” At a meeting at Birmingham 4 the 
recognition of household suffrage as the basis of the fran¬ 
chise in the boroughs was accepted with great satisfaction; 
but it was pointed out that the advantages were neutralized 
by the condition which limited the right of voting to those 
occupiers who paid local rates directly, and by the unwise 

^he Times, March 4, 1867. 

2 The Times, March 4, 1867. 

*Ibid., March 20, 1867. 

4 On March 22; cf. the Times of March 23, 1867. 


127] THE POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM 12 y 

innovation of dual voting. Many were the protests, too, 
against the residence clause. 1 The London Working Men’s 
Association pledged itself (April 16) in the event of the 
bill passing through Parliament in its present shape—requir¬ 
ing a personal payment of rates and a residential qualifica¬ 
tion of two years, with the omission of a lodger fran¬ 
chise—to a continued and increased agitation until personal 
payment of rates should be abolished, the term; of residence 
reduced, and the principles of residential and registered 
manhood suffrage, protected by the ballot, be acknowledged 
by the Legislature. 2 It also was firmly against the £5 rat¬ 
ing amendment which Gladstone upheld. At a great Re¬ 
form demonstration at Birmingham (April 22) a resolution 
stated that while the meeting desired to maintain peace, law, 
and order in the country, it did believe that the continued 
obstructions to Reform, and the treachery of the House of 
Commons in reference to the great constitutional question, 
would lend to exasperate a loyal and industrious people and, 
if persevered in, would ultimately lead to anarchy and revo¬ 
lution. 3 

The Reformers, however, showed their pleasure at the 
changes made in the bill which were favorable to them. 
At the Hyde Park meeting of May 6, O’Donoghue moved 
the following resolutions: 

That this meeting, whilst still adhering to registered and resi¬ 
dential manhood suffrage, protected by the ballot, as the only 
really efficient measure of Reform in the representation of the 
people, hails with satisfaction the withdrawal ... of Lord 
Grosvenor’s proposed amendment, 4 and the majority of 81 

1 Six months was wanted instead of two years; cf. infra, p. 200. 

*The Times, April 17, 1867. 

s The Times, April 23, 1867. 

4 Earl Grosvenor had given notice of an amendment to substitute a 
£5 rating for household suffrage. 


I2 8 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [ I2 8 

on the same evening against the two years’ residence clause in 
the Government bill, and earnestly calls upon the House of 
Commons to make that bill a more full and honest measure 
for the execution of the franchise by expunging from it the 
rate-paying clauses, equalizing the borough and country fran¬ 
chises on the principle of household suffrage, and introducing 
a provision giving a vote to lodgers, or else to reject that bill 
altogether. 1 

This meeting, however, is more important for the history of 
the rights of public meetings than for the history of Reform. 
The Government, after warning the Reformers not to use 
Hyde Park as a meeting place, decided that it had taken a 
wrong position, and, although arrangements had been made 
that nearly five thousand of the metropolitan police massed 
together in the park should prevent a second Hyde Park 
episode, did permit the meeting. Colonel Dickson addressed 
his “ fellow-4respassers,” but not on the subject of Reform; 
he was positively sick of the subject. He thought the game 
was in their hands now. “ You have done the trick. 
Don’t undo it. Be steady and be orderly. Give the lie to 
your traducers.” And the well-attended meeting did go off 
quietly. 

On the seventeenth of May, an amendment to the bill 
which did away with the compound householder 2 was ac- 

*The Times , May 7, 1867. 

1 Compound householders (comprising more than a third of the entire 
number of householders) were those who made an agreement with 
their landlord by which their rates were paid to the landlord. The 
latter, for the trouble of collecting, was given a percentage off by the 
authorities and, therefore, charged his tenants not the full rate but a 
reduced (i. e., a composition) rate. The tenants who compounded, 
however, did not usually have their names on the register and could not 
vote, and Disraeli with his cry of “ personal payment of rates ” had 
found no convenient method of enfranchising them except by agreeing 
to the amendment which abolished compounding and had all pay 
rates “ personally ” and thus put on the register. 


I 2 g\ THE popular attitude TOWARD REFORM 12 g 

cepted by the Conservative Government and a great obstruc¬ 
tion to real household suffrage had gone. Shortly after¬ 
wards the Times awoke to the knowledge that the nation 
was at the foot of a precipice; 1 how the descent had been 
made it knew not; nor, indeed, was it entirely sure that the 
nation had not received any hurts; only one thing was cer¬ 
tain—the nation was at the foot of the precipice. 

The Reform League was, of course, quite willing to re¬ 
cognize its own importance: in this victory for the Reform¬ 
ers. Mr. Beales said “ it was the greatest farce for Mr. 
Disraeli to say there would be a Reform Bill of any kind but 
for the agitation of the Reform League. The Reform 
League were the real authors of the Bill.” 2 Others, too, 
were impressed with the League’s influence. Goldwin 
Smith in writing to the Secretary of the League said: 

It is impossible to doubt that the popular movement, so effec¬ 
tively and, at the same time, so legally and peacefully con¬ 
ducted by the two combined associations has been the main 
instrument in turning the present holders of power from the 
opponents of the limited Reform Bill of last Session into the 
advocates of household suffrage and something more. I say 
of something more, because the lodger franchise plainly inter¬ 
dicts and must in the end break up the restrictive principles 
of the present Bill. 3 

Disraeli was not keen to acknowledge the influence of an 
association many of whose leading members were affiliated 
with the Liberal party. Rather was it to his interests to 
have the Conservative party recognized as the important 
factor in granting the franchise. That some of the work¬ 
ingmen were grateful to him for the part he had played was 

J The Times, May 30, 1867, editorial. 

1 Report of League meeting in the Times of May 30, 1867. 

s Given in the Times, June 17, 1867. 


130 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[130 

proved by the deputation of artisans to the Government on 
the eighth of June, which expressed itself as opposed to) 
the Reform League but “ hoped that artisans would show 
their gratitude to the Government which had enfranchised 
them.” 1 Already a Conservative League had been formed 2 
and a deputation had assured 3 Disraeli that Conservative 
feeling was spreading throughout the country—a fact of. 
which he had convincing proof in connection with seventeen 
associations which the workingmen o-f Yorkshire had joined 
because they felt that his party was the true and only friend 
of the working classes. Goldwin Smith saw the head of 
the Tory Government “ decoying the workingmen, who 
a few months ago were being reviled amid the vociferous, 
cheers of the Tory party, into an alliance with the Tory 
oligarchy against the middle and commercial classes.” 

It was, of course, recognized that the suffrage was desired 
as a means to an end. 4 Many speeches already quoted tend 
to show this. It was felt that a reformed House would do 
away, in part, with class government, or would at least give 
the working class an opportunity^ to' have its grievances 
heard; that some serious “ social maladies ” would be helped 
or cured; that the economic conditions due to the acts of 
the middle and upper classes would be improved. Class 
government and many of the social evils could have been 
and were complained of during most of the preceding years 
of the nineteenth century. The terrible economic distress 
causing suffering and irritation had been brought in great 
part by the panic of May, 1866, the effects of which were 
very patent during the autumn of 1866 and the whole of 
1867. 

*The Times, June 10, 1867. 

2 Notice in the Times, April 30, 1867; cf. also News of the World, 
May 5, 1867. 

i Cf. the Times, May 1, 1867. 

4 Cf. editorial of the Times, June 17, 1867. 


I 3 I] the POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM 131 

Complaints against class government were frequent. 
That it was unjust 1 to refuse to labor the tribunals given 
so freely to capital, unjust not to legalize and regulate trade 
unions as unions of apothecaries, surgeons and barristers 
were legalized and regulated, was the feeling of many. It 
was said 2 that probably a reformed Parliament would take 
a little more pains to help on the improvements of the dwell¬ 
ings of the lower class, and a little less to compensate land- 
owners for the cattle plague. 3 “ Even their (i. e., the Lib¬ 
erals’) most advanced politician, John Bright,” wrote an 
artisan to the Times, “ cannot so far forget his class and 
the class that vote for him as to propose the repeal of the 
Master and Servant Act and will probably vote for an Adul- 
lamite amendment instead of repeal.” 4 To many, the 
words of the pamphleteer sounded like an axiom: “We 
have the germs of a representative Government, and we 
know that this, like truth brought to light, will always rep¬ 
resent itself, and advance the interests, and the interests 
only, that it represents.” 5 

Complaints against other “social sores ” were not few in 
number. The state of the great cities and of the laborers’ 
homes therein was described 6 as heart-rending: in many of 
the towns and especially in the metropolis, the number of 
persons who herded together in habitations scarcely ven¬ 
tilated, drained imperfectely or not at all, with no water 
supply and, in reference to the filth, indecency, and pestil¬ 
ential condition of which, no language can be too unmeasured, 
had to be reckoned by hundreds of thousands. In the rural 

l Cf. the Spectator, January 19, 1867. 

2 Macmillan's, April, 1867, p. 533- 

3 Vide supra, p. 65. 

4 The Times, August 29, 1866. 

5 W. F. Stanley, Proposition for a New Reform Bill, p. 7. 

6 Cf. Fortnightly Review, vol. vii, pp. 269 et seq. 


i3 2 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[132 

districts the great proportion lived in hovels. Landowners 
in these sections were unwilling to allow cottages to be built 
upon their property lest the rates be increased; in the cities 
the workingmen had not money with which to* buy land for 
dwellings. 1 In any case the government did nothing. 

The deficiencies of the educational system were mentioned 
time and again. 2 The North British Review in a discussion 
of the subject said: 

The notorious facts cannot be gainsaid,—that our agricultural 
population is for the most part uninstructed mentally, and un¬ 
developed even to stupidity; that a very large proportion of 
our town population never go near a school, and grow up in 
absolute brutality; that not one-half of the children of fitting 
age are to be found under instruction, and that of those who 
do attend or have attended school with tolerable regularity, a 
large proportion have their education cut short at an age which 
leaves little prospect of their retaining what they have ac¬ 
quired, and that these have few opportunities of supplement¬ 
ing their deficiencies in later years. In short, among the work¬ 
ing classes, taking the country through, a fair and useful de¬ 
gree of instructedness ... is the exception and not the rule, 
while the mass, reckoning them by the millions, is deplorably 
and disgracefully without the rudiments of culture. 3 

Pauperism, too, was a great crying evil. One tenth of 
our revenue, one twentieth of the population—said one 
writer 4 —sink in the abyss. Bright declared that the ruling 
classes in England had miserably failed; there were 1,200,000 
paupers in the country. 5 And the winter of 1866 and 1867, 

1 The North British Review, new series, vol. viii (1867), pp. 514 and 515. 

3 C/. Fortnightly Review, September 15,1866; Frazer's, November, 1866. 

8 The North British Review, new series, vol. viii (1867), “The Social 
Sores of Great Britain,” pp. 512 and 513. 

4 Frederic Harrison in the Fortnightly Review, vol. vii, p. 271. 

6 John Bright, Speeches on Parliamentary Reform (London, 1866), 
speech at Glasgow, p. 32. 


i;33] THE POPULAR ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM ^3 

it will be remembered, was a time when pauperism was in¬ 
creasing greatly in comparison with the winter of the, pre¬ 
ceding year. The increase was felt to be due to the 
financial panic. 1 Indeed, added to those “ social maladies” 
which a reformed House would partially or completely cure, 
were those ailments vaguely called economic, which this 
same reformed House must relieve. 

What, in summary, can be said as to the influence of 
popular demand upon the Reform movement ? In the early 
’sixties, it has been pointed out, there was no agitation. 
But events happening at home and abroad were not un¬ 
favorable to Reform; at home a more liberal ministry came 
into power with the death of Palmerston in 1865; in Amer¬ 
ica, a democratic North sympathized with by the English 
workingmen, had conquered an aristocratic South; Italy was 
well on the way to unification under a somewhat liberal 
government; in Germany, it was said, Bismarck was grant¬ 
ing an extensive suffrage. There were those who' thought 
that England should grant privileges to her working classes. 
The Reform League, formed in 1865, tried by the help of 
such orators at John Bright, W. E. Forster and other radical 
Liberals to start an agitation. The attempt was not very suc¬ 
cessful, however, and only once—during the Easter re¬ 
cess of 1866—did it appear as if the country had been stirred. 
The agitation, such as it was, soon diminished, and the 
House of Commons seemed to* be quite unmoved. But with 
the defeat of the bill of 1866, numerous Reform meetings 
again were held. The arguments of Lowe, applicable 
against any extension of the suffrage, aroused the working 
classes; distress and discontent with the economic condition 
followed the commercial panic in May; the Hyde Park inci- 


1 Vide, for instance, in the Times, January 14, 1867, the letter of W. M. 
Bullivant; vide, also, the Times, January 22, 1867. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


134 


[134 


dent advertised the Reform question throughout the land in 
a most striking manner. The Reform League, having 
gained an advantage at Hyde Park, followed up this suc¬ 
cess by calling together the workingmen in orderly but mon¬ 
ster Reform meetings during the autumn of 1866. On 
most occasions John Bright was the chief speaker. The 
press already alarmed for the welfare of the country because 
of the activity of the Fenians, thought the nation had cause 
to worry when the trade unions came out strongly for Re¬ 
form. The Conservative Government, reading “ the signs 
of the times ” found it necessary to introduce a new Reform 
bill. Bright had written to Disraeli telling him that a Tory 
Reform bill must be acceptable to the Commons and the Re¬ 
form associations. A bill containing a £5 borough and a 
£10 or £12 county franchise clause, he thought, would be 
acceptable to both. Disraeli, who, to stop the agitation, had 
to grant at least these conditions, did follow much more 
closely the various requests and demands of Reform: speakers. 
The various reasons assigned for his actions will be dis¬ 
cussed later. Any history of the Reform bill of 1867 which 
fails to take into account the influence of the agitation of the 
working class and especially of that part of the working class 
represented by the trade unions is incomplete. 


CHAPTER IV 

The Official Attitude Toward Reform 

As opposed to the popular attitude toward Reform there 
must be taken into consideration the official attitude toward 
the question. By official attitude is meant not only the 
attitude of those men chosen to carry on the Government of 
the country, but the attitude of all the members of the House 
of Commons either as individuals or as combined in parties. 
Inasmuch as there was little popular pressure during the 
period that the Reform bill of 1866 was under considera¬ 
tion, a study of the action of the parties and of the argu¬ 
ments used for and against Reform on that occasion may 
well serve to show what official England thought of the Re¬ 
form question. 

It has already been pointed out that Palmerston, the head 
of the Government during the early ’sixties, was against any 
extension of the suffrage. He was a statesman of the old 
English aristocratic type, and stood for liberalism on the 
Continent but against any democratic government for Eng¬ 
land. The two great parties as a whole backed up his ad¬ 
ministration; they said that they were for a “well-con¬ 
sidered measure of reform,” as “ opposed to any revolu¬ 
tionary change/’ but at the same time declared it useless tot 
take up the question so long as the public was not interested. 
It was a period when there prevailed so great a harmony of 
tone between Whig and Tory that one could scarcely dis¬ 
tinguish them. 1 As the Annual Register said: 

1 The Westminster Review, “ Parliament and Reform,” April, 1865, 
p. 503; Quarterly Review , “The Six Year Old Parliament,” July, 1865. 

135 ] J 35 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


136 


[I3<5 


The spirit of party . . . appeared to have lost nearly all its 
acrimony, and even a large share of its vitality, both in Par- 
liament and in the country at large; it seemed as if few ques¬ 
tions remained to divide in any material degree the opinions 
of the different sections of politicians. Some of the prominent 
men on either side of the House of Commons did not hesitate 
openly to avow their indifference to party bonds and watch¬ 
words. 1 


The Government, moreover, enjoyed to a great degree, 
public confidence. 

But with the death of Palmerston in October, 1865, there 
came a change. It was the opinion of the Annual Register 
that none of his colleagues, however powerful in intellect or 
mature in experience, was likely to equal the departed chief 
in that address and tact so necessary to* hold together the 
somewhat diverse elements of the Liberal party in the House 
of Commons. 2 And, where, indeed, would be found the 
statesman who could remove the fears or conciliate the sup¬ 
port of the Opposition, for the Conservative party, in spite 
of its attempt at Reform in 1859, was strongly against any 
radical change! 

Earl Russell, head of the new ministry, was, it was said, 
by birth, by education, by family traditions and political 
connection a Whig of the usual conviction, believing that the 
real Constitution of England was an oligarchical Consti¬ 
tution. 3 It is true that he had stood for Reform many times 
since 1832, but too often he had not been over-energetic in 
the cause. Besides he was growing old and would need 
much assistance from Gladstone, the Chancellor of the Ex- 

1 Annual Register, 1864, p. 3. 

i Annual Register, 1865, p. 159. 

8 Vide Blackwood’s, “The New Ministry,” August, 1866, p. 262. On 
characteristics of Russell, cf. Walpole, Life of Lord John Russell, voL 
ii, p. 409. 


137] THE OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM 

chequer. Gladstone was, indeed, the man on whom much 
hinged. Entering Parliament as a Tory he had gone over 
to the Liberal side, not, as he said, 1 by any arbitrary act, 
but by the slow and resistless forces of conviction. Since 
his suffrage speech of 1864 2 the Conservatives had become 
very suspicious of him, and many of the Radicals had pre¬ 
tended to see in him a convert. 3 The Quarterly Reviezv 
in writing on the situation said: 

The real and pressing danger of Mr. Gladstone’s leadership 
will undoubtedly be his newly-formed views upon Reform. 
Or rather, to put it more generally, there will be the dangers 
arising from any Liberal majority when once the restraining 
influence of Lord Palmerston is taken away. It must not be 
forgotten that the Liberal party differs from the Conservative 
party in this, that it is not a homogeneous body. In the Con¬ 
servative party there may be here and there individual eccen¬ 
tricities. ... It is an old remark that the Whigs and the Rad¬ 
icals differ more from each other, in point of political opinion, 
than the Whigs and the Conservatives. 4 

Indeed, it would be more in accordance with the facts to 
make a threefold division of the Liberal party rather than 
the mentioned twofold division of Radicals and Whigs. 
There were the Liberals proper, following party bonds and 
party creeds, whipped into line under Gladstone. There was 
a conservative element, opposed upon principle to any ex¬ 
tension of the suffrage. Finally the Radical party, to which 
reference has been made before, stood strongly for a change 
in the franchise qualifications. 

1 Hansard, vol. clxxxiii, p. 130, debate of April 27, 1866. 

2 Cf. supra, p. 37. 

s Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. ii, pp. 127 et seq.; vide, also, Quarterly 
Review, July, 1865. 

4 Quarterly Review, July, 1865, p. 291. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


138 


[138 


Robert Lowe, member for Caine, came during the sessions 
of 1866 and 1867, to be the great leader of the conservative 
element in the Liberal party. Although he had been a mem¬ 
ber of the ministry of i860, when Lord Russell introduced 
a Reform bill, his hostility to the 1866 bill was based on an 
anti-democratic principle. Back of him were to stand about 
forty Liberals, 1 —enough to* defeat the bill and turn out the 
ministry. Their attitude caused Bright to write of the 
“ forty thieves ” and the “ forty traitors ” 2 and to them was 
applied generally the name “ Adullamites.” 9 

John Bright was the leader of the Radicals. “ Radical ” 
as applied to Bright must be used with quotations since, in 
some important respects, he was not progressive. For in¬ 
stance, he was willing enough to* confess to* his opposition 
to factory legislation for adults, male and female. But he 
was a non-conformist and he had joined Cobden in the fight 
against the Com Laws. The term “ Radical,” however, 
was applied because he was doing all in his power to pro¬ 
cure the franchise for the working class—a matter in which 
Cobden did not display unusual activity. His work during! 
the ’fifties was important and when the bill of 1866 was 
brought in, he was willing to accept it as the best the Gov¬ 
ernment could give at that time. 

Such were the factions which Gladstone must keep to¬ 
gether if he were to pass a Reform bill. According to the 
Grey Papers, 4 Gladstone, in talking with the Speaker of the 
House of Commons, admitted that there was no strong feel¬ 
ing for Reform among his constituents, but his majority of 


*For list vide Harris, History of the Radical Party in Parliament, 
pp. 471 and 473- 

2 Trevelyan, Life of John Bright, p. 356. 

8 For origin of term vide infra, p. 147. 

4 October 22, 1865; quoted from Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. ii, 
pp. 198 and 199. 


! 39] THE 0FFICIAL ATTITUDE toward REFORM I39 

eighty bothered him. “ They,” he said, “ will expect some 
action; ”—to which the Speaker answered: 

No doubt a majority of eighty, agreed on any point, would 
expect action. At the time of the first Reform bill, when the 
whole party was for the bill, the course was clear. But is the 
party agreed now? The point it was agreed upon was to 
support Lord Palmerston’s government. But was that in 
order to pass a strong measure of reform? Suppose that the 
country is satisfied with the foreign policy, and the home 
policy, and the financial policy, and wants to maintain these 
and their authors, and does not want great changes of any 
kind? 

Whatever Gladstone may have believed about the popular 
attitude, the Government of which he was the conspicuous 
figure, brought in a Reform bill on March 12, 1866. 
Friends said that his action was due to firm conviction that 
the working class was not represented in any proportion to 
their numbers and in accordance with their share of the in¬ 
come of the country; 1 by others it was declared that he was 
led on by Russell who felt he must take up the question or 
be guilty of forfeiting a pledge. 2 Enemies of the adminis¬ 
tration suggested that political advantages had become an 
important factor. 3 The Radicals had gained 4 somewhat 
at the election of 1865, and though yet a small minority, 
they were 5 an energetic and resolute party who were mak¬ 
ing the Reform question their platform. The Liberals, after 
the death of Palmerston, needed some added strength. 

1 Cf. statement of Quarterly Review, July, 1866, p. 265. 

2 Cf. Frazer's, January, 1866, p. 6, and William Rathbone, The Rock 
Ahead (Edinburgh and London, 1867), p. 5. 

3 Quarterly Review, July, 1866, p. 266. 

4 James Howard Harris Malmesbury, Memoirs of an Ex-Minister; an 
Autobiography, 2 vols. (London, 1884), vol. ii, p. 340. 

• Frazer's, August, 1865, p. 136. 


140 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[140 


Therefore, said the Opposition press, they surrendered to 
the Radicals and appointed Mr. Goschen and Mr. Forster 
to the Government. 1 As for the bill they brought in,—that 
was but the great game of twenty-five years ago played over 
again 2 —an attempt to keep the influence of the party from 
waning by handing out the franchise little by little to grate¬ 
ful constituents. Mr. Forster, however, at a Reform meet¬ 
ing at Bradford, in November, 1865, gave a summary of his 
opinion on internal politics and Reform, and, of course, did 
not make mention of any advantages which might accrue tor 
those passing the bill. He considered Reform in the ascen¬ 
dent because: (1) Palmerston was no longer Premier; 
(2) Russell was the head of the Government; (3) Gladstone 
was leader of the House of Commons and had been rejected 
by Oxford; (4) a large majority of the new House of 
Commons had actually pledged themselves to Reform in 
their election addresses; (5) a new Parliament and a new 
ministry was ready for work, and “ there is more hope in 
the new than in the old, of which indeed, there was no 
hope.” 3 On the other hand there were certain signs of 
opposition; there were many waverers in the Liberal ranks. 
Many did not want Reform' though ready to vote for it, if 
necessary. All were afraid of being sent adrift by the bill 
and of losing their dearly bought seats after one or two years 
cf unquiet possession. 

The bill was brought in on March twelfth. After that 
portion of the Queen’s speech which referred to Reform had 
been read by the clerk, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose 
in a House crowded with curious members and strangers 

1 Quarterly Review, January, 1866, pp. 252-253; vide also J. H. Murchi¬ 
son, The Conservatives and “Liberals,” p. xii. 

* Blackwood’s, February, 1866, pp. 144 et seq. 

3 As discussed in an editorial of the Times, November 25, 1865; for the 
speech, vide the Times, November 24, 1865. 


I 4 l] THE OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM I4I 

to state its provisions. Few ministers — said he 1 — have 
risen in recent years to address this House under greater 
difficulties than those which at this moment attend my own 
position and present task. Although the difficulties be con¬ 
centrated in their greatest weight upon us, yet, they are 
not ours alone. The interest in the successful solution of 
this problem is an interest common to the whole House of 
Commons, and to every party, and every section of a party 
that sits within these walls. By no less than five adminis¬ 
trations, and in no less than five Queen’s speeches before that 
of the present year, the House of Commons has been ac¬ 
quainted by the sovereign, under the advice of her consti¬ 
tutionally appointed ministers, that the time, in their judg¬ 
ment, had arrived when the representation of the people 
ought to undergo' revision. The election of a new Parlia¬ 
ment naturally made the Government feel that the time had 
arrived when it was right that the sense of representatives 
of the people should again be taken in regard to the laws 
which regulated the electoral system. The duty of the 
Government in this respect was a very plain one. Hence 
they had taken measures to obtain information which could 
throw light on the case. The statistics obtained showed that 
the working class, which ought, owing to its advance in 
education, in social conduct, in self-command and power of 
endurance, and avidity for knowledge, to have borne an in¬ 
creasing and growing proportion has borne a dwindling and 
diminishing proportion to the whole number of the town 
constituency. 

As to the measure itself—was it to be complete? Would 
it deal with the franchise in England and in Wales, in Scot¬ 
land, and in Ireland? Would it take into consideration that 
whole group of questions included in the common phrase, 
“redistribution of seats? ” Would it treat of the question 

1 Cf. Hansard, vol. clxxxii, pp. 19 et seq. 


142 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[142 

of the boundary of boroughs ? Would it concern itself with 
the corrupt practises at elections and with the administra¬ 
tive machinery for registration and for the holding of elec¬ 
tions ? Inasmuch as time and space are not yet annihilated, 
declared the Chancellor of the Exchequer, such a measure 
cannot now be discussed. He thought it quite impossible to 
do more than to look at what came first in the order of im¬ 
portance, the electoral franchise. According to his pro¬ 
posal the occupation franchise in the counties was to be 
reduced from £50 to £14. This was an occupation franchise, 
not of land alone but of a house with land. It was calcu¬ 
lated that 172,000 voters would be added, but from the mid¬ 
dle class, since the number of persons properly belonging to 
the working classes who* had a £14 rental franchise would 
be so very small as not to be worth taking into calcula¬ 
tion. Copyholders and leaseholders having property within 
limits of boroughs were to be allowed to* vote in the county 
within which it lay under the same condition as freeholders. 1 
By a savings-bank franchise for adult male depositors of 
£50 who possessed that deposit for two years, 10,000 to 
15,000 persons were to be added. Such a special franchise 
would have its principal operation in the counties. In the 
town constituencies some 60,000 persons above the £10 line 
were to be enfranchised by abolishing the law allowing land¬ 
lords by arrangement with the parish officers to pay rates for 
rate-paying householders, by new provisions causing the 
compound householders to be treated like rate-paying house¬ 
holders, and by putting lodgers who* occupied rooms of the 
clear annual value of £10 on the same footing as those hold¬ 
ing tenements. For enfranchisement below the line the clear 
annual value as determined by the gross estimated rental 
was taken as the basis. 2 Because a £6 rental would give 

1 Freeholders in boroughs who did not occupy their property could 
vote in the county in which the borough was situated. 

2 The gross estimated rental is defined by the 25 and 26 Viet., c. 103 


143] THE 0FFI C IAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM I43 

242,000 new voters and would place the working class in a 
majority, a proposal to use such a figure, thought the 
Chancellor of Exchequer, would not be agreeable to Parlia¬ 
ment. Hence a clear annual value of £7 was chosen as the 
dividing line. By such a provision 144,000 would be en¬ 
franchised, who, taken with those of the working class now 
voting, 126.000, and those to be added above the £10 line, 
60,000, would make a total of 330,000 voters belonging to 
the working class as against 362,000 voters of classes other 
than the working class- The bill in itself would enfranchise 
204,000 persons in the towns, and 172,000 in the counties, 
not including about 24,000 added by clauses relating to the 
copyhold, leasehold, and savings-bank franchises, or 400,000 
altogether. 1 Apropos of the proportion of the new consti¬ 
tuency to the total householders, it was said that the actual 
constituency represented 36 per cent of the male occupiers, 
that the proposed constituency would represent 51 per cent 
of those male occupiers, and that of the working classes 
there would be in the towns 330,000 enfranchised against 
588,000 unenfranchised. A clause disqualifying from 1 vot¬ 
ing, persons employed in the government yards while so em¬ 
ployed, was also promised. 

In conclusion the Chancellor of the Exchequer said: 

If issue is taken adversely upon this Bill, I hope it will be 
above all a plain and direct issue. I trust it will be taken 
upon the question whether there is or is not to be an enfran¬ 
chisement downwards, if it is to be taken at all. ... We can¬ 
to be “ the rent at which the hereditament might reasonably be expected 
to let from year to year, free of all usual tenants’ rates and taxes, and 
tithe commutation rent charge, if any;” a rateable value was obtained 
from the gross estimated rental by making various deductions (which 
varied extremely in different places). 

1 There was much disagreement over Gladstone’s statistics. Many 
members of the House of Commons thought the proportion of working¬ 
men greater than shown, others much less. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


144 


[144 


not consent to look upon this large addition, considerable al¬ 
though it may be, to the political power of the working classes 
of this country as if it were an addition fraught with mischief 
and with danger. We cannot look, and we hope no man will 
look, upon it as upon some Trojan horse approaching the 
walls of the sacred city, and filled with armed men, bent upon 
ruin, plunder, and conflagration. We cannot join in comparing 
it with that monstrum infelix —we cannot say— 

“—scandit fatalis machina muros, 

Foeta armis: mediaeque minans illabitur urbi.” 

I believe that those persons whom we ask you to enfranchise 
ought rather to be welcomed as you would welcome recruits 
to your army or children to your family. 


The reception of the measure on the first night could not 
have been gratifying to the ministry. Mr. Laing, usually 
a supporter of the Government, was opposed to reopening 
a question which he thought had been settled long since, and 
at a period of the session when there was not time to give 
full and fair consideration to the whole subject. 1 He had 
thought it advisable to express the opinions he had, because 
he believed they were held by many of the moderate Liberal 
party and he felt bound to express his deep disappointment 
that the Government had resolved to deal with the matter 
piecemeal, and not by one comprehensive measure. The 
House was asked to support the bill on pledges given some 
years ago. For himself he had given- no pledge on enter¬ 
ing Parliament but a promise generally to support Lord 
Palmerston’s administration, and he did not feel disposed 
to violate that pledge, either in the letter or the spirit. 
Would Lord Palmerston have consented, in the face of the 
returns recently presented to the House, to introduce a 
measure proposing to lower the franchise without redistribu¬ 
ting the seats, to reopen an agitation the issue of which none 


1 Hansard, vol. clxxxii, pp. 75 et seq. 


145] THE offi CIAL attitude toward REFORM I45 

could foresee, to offer them a Reform bill which was not 
final and contained no element of security ? 

On the same evening, Mr. Horsman also showed the 
attitude of the conservative faction of the Liberal party. 
He attacked the bill as the work of Bright—it was, in short, 
the old battle revived—the Member for Birmingham and 
Lord Russell against the majority of the Cabinet and the 
country. Judging Bright by his political principles, he was 
not an Englishman but an alien, not a believer in the Brit¬ 
ish Constitution, but as ardent a Republican as President 
Johnson himself. 1 Bright, however, proved himself able 
during the following debates to' retort effectively to any and 
all slurs. On the thirteenth of March Mr. Lowe in a well 
prepared speech showed himself to be in harmony with Mr. 
Horsman and Mr. Laing. He spoke against any extension 
of the franchise. Seldom in the nineteenth century was 
any speaker to utter in Parliament words more significant 
of opposition to thorough-going democracy than these 
spoken by Lowe on this occasion: 

Let any Gentleman consider the constituencies he has had the 
honor to be concerned with. If you want venality, if you 
want ignorance, if you want drunkenness and facility for 
being intimidated; or if, on the other hand, you want impul¬ 
sive, unreflecting, and violent people, where do you look for 
them in the constituencies? Do you go to the top or to the 
bottom? It is ridiculous for us to allege that since the Re¬ 
form Bill the sins of the constituencies or the voters are 
mainly comprised between £20 and £10. But, then, it has 
been said the £10 shopkeepers, and lodginghouse keepers, and 
beerhouse keepers, are an indifferent class of people; but get 
to the artizan, and there you will see the difference. It is a 
sort of theory the ancients had about the north wind. The 
ancients observed that a9 they went further to the north the 


1 Hansard, vol. clxxxii, pp. 90-114. 


I4 6 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [146 

wind got colder. Colder and colder it got the further they 
went, just as the constituencies get worse and worse the 
nearer you approach £10. They reasoned in this way—If it 
is so cold when you are in front of the north wind, how very 
warm it would be if you could only get behind it. And, there¬ 
fore, they imagined for themselves a blessed land we have all 
read of, where the people, called the Hyperboreans, were 
always perfectly warm, happy and virtuous, because they had 
got to the other side of the north wind. It is the same view 
that my right honorable Friend takes with respect to the £10 
franchise—if you go a little lower you get into the virtuous 
stratum. We know what those persons are who live in small 
houses—we have had experience of them under the name of 
“ freemen ” — and no better law, I think, could have been 
passed than that which disfranchised them altogether. 1 

Such words quoted as a whole or in part by opponents of 
Lowe became far more effective as a means of stirring up 
the working classes than as any obstacle to democratic ten¬ 
dencies. 2 

The,members of the Radical wing were of course not any 
too' pleased with the actions and words of the dissenters. 
Mr. Fawcett referred to Mr. Horsman as an “ honorable 
gentleman who' sits on the Liberal benches, and is always en¬ 
thusiastically cheered by the Conservatives who sit on the 
opposite side of the House.” 3 ' Bright suggested that Lowe 
was resentful because out of office: 

“ For who, to dumb forgetfulness a prey, 

That pleasing, anxious office e’er resigned, 

Left the warm precincts of the Treasury, 

Nor cast one longing, lingering look behind?” 4 

As for Horsman: 

1 Hansard, vol. clxxxii, pp. 147-148. 

2 Cf. supra, p. 100. 

8 Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13), p. 200. 

4 Hansard, vol. clxxxii, p. 219. 


l 4 y] THE OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM I4 y 

The right honorable Gentleman is the first of the new party 
who has expressed his great grief by his actions—who has 
retired into what may be called his political cave of Adullam— 
and he has called about him every one that was in distress and 
every one that was discontented. The right honorable Gentle¬ 
man has been long anxious to form a party in this House. 
There is scarcely at this side of the House any one who is able 
to address the House with effect or to take much part in our 
debates that he has not tried to bring over to his party or 
cabal—and lastly, the right honorable Gentleman has succeeded 
in hooking the right honorable Gentleman the member for 
Caine (Mr. Lowe). I know there was an opinion expressed 
many years ago by a member of the Treasury Bench and of 
the Cabinet, that two men would make a party. When a party 
is formed of two men so amiable and so disinterested as the 
two right honorable Gentlemen, we may hope to see for the 
first time in Parliament a party perfectly harmonious and 
distinguished by mutual and unbroken trust. But there is one 
difficulty which it is impossible to remove. This party of two 
is like the Scotch terrier that was so covered with hair that 
you could not tell which was the head and which was the tail. 1 

The reference to the cave of Adullam 2 was at once made 
use of. Those of the Liberals who opposed the bill and 
joined forces with Lowe, Horsman and Laing were given* 
the name of Adullamites 31 —a name which lasted until a 

1 Ibid., vol. clxxxii, pp. 219-220. 

2 1 Samuel 22: 1-2 reads: 

“ David therefore departed thence, and escaped to the cave Adullam: 
and when his brethren and all his father’s house heard it, they went 
down thither to him. 

“And everyone that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, 
and everyone that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him; and 
he became a captain over them: and there were with him about four 
hundred men.” 

3 J. F. Rhodes, in the History of the United States, vol. iv, p. 464, 
relates how in 1864 Lincoln when told by a friend of the nomination 
of Fremont for president by a few hundred men, opened his Bible and 
read the passage just quoted (1 iSam. 22:2). 


I4 8 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [148 

Reform bill had been passed. Apropos of the bill, Bright 
said that he was not able to find a point in it which he had 
recommended; that he believed in a household franchise for 
the boroughs; that he was not for a £14 franchise in the 
county and not for a savings-bank franchise and that he 
did not trust Gladstone’s statistics concerning the number 
of workingmen on the register. He did not think the bill 
sufficient but gave it his support. This gentle censure of 
the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to Viscount Cran- 
borne to give the House an exhibition of a lover’s quarrel. 1 
At the close of the evening’s debate (March 13), the bill 
was presented and read the first time. 

But the great contest of the session commenced on the 
twelfth of April. The debates characterized by so conspic¬ 
uous a display of Parliamentary oratory as perhaps no oc¬ 
casion in recent times had produced, 2 were continued for 
eight nights. On the first day the Chancellor of the Exche¬ 
quer moved the second reading. He promised to present 
bills upon the Scotch and Irish franchise and upon the re¬ 
distribution of seats before going into committee upon this 
bill. Earl Grosvenor, Adullamite, moved an amendment 
to the effect that a bill for reducing the franchise could not 
be discussed until the entire scheme contemplated by the 
Government for the amendment of the representation of the 
people was presented. The Government, he thought, put 
itself open, upon this question, to the charge of deserting 
its party, when in bringing forward a measure of Reform it 
consulted mainly and in the first instance, the feelings and 
wishes of the Radicals. 

The debaters had considerable to say upon the amend¬ 
ment but devoted much more time to a consideration of the 
whole question of Reform. 3 Lord Stanley, Conservative, 

1 Hansard, vol. clxxxii, p. 225. 

2 Opinion of Annual Register, 18 66, p. 117. 

* Vide infra for arguments for and against Reform. 


I49 ] THE OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM I49 

in seconding the amendment, spoke in favor of suspending 
the entire question until 1867, when it might be taken up 
at the very beginning of the session. 1 The objections of 
Lhe Adullamites and Conservatives were m'any. They 
claimed that, by bringing forward only part of the measure, 
the Government asked the House to put trust in them while 
they refused to put trust in the House; that they saw “ the 
House of Commons managed as pious missionaries manage 
their savage converts, not telling them too much for fear of 
embarrassing their simple minds ”; 2 that the House when 
called upon to vote for a measure which depended on 
another measure was really asked to> resign its functions as 
a deliberative assembly, and to place a blind confidence in 
ministers. It was to ask the assembly to jump at once to 
the ultimatum to which universal suffrage would finally lead 
it; namely, the separate and independent dictation of the 
Executive. Arguments were used against legislation by 
“ piecemeal,” as an unusual and unconstitutional procedure. 
Besides, taking up the franchise before the redistribution of 
seats would make the absurdity and anomaly of the small 
boroughs more glaring. And, it was said, there was no 
certainty that there would be the same ministry in office next 
year to complete the measure, should the franchise bill pass 
this session. 

The Liberals, of course, gave reply to the objections and 
were not slow to point out 3 that whereas the amendment was 
for a more nearly complete measure, many arguments used 
were against Reform'. Mr. Forster declared that most of 
those speaking against the amendment had discussed the 
merits of the bill, although the amendment expressly stated 

1 Hansard, vol. clxxxii, p. 1169. 

2 Mr. Gregory, Hansard, vol. clxxxii, p. 1799. 

3 In addition to speeches given, vide Mr. W. E. Baxter’s speech, 
Hansard, vol. clxxxii, pp. 1227-1237. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


150 


[15° 


that it was inexpedient to do so- till the whole bill was before 
the House. 1 They had shown why the franchise should not 
be reduced, or why it should not be reduced in the manner 
proposed in the bill. What they should have done, there¬ 
fore, was to propose an amendment, declaring that it was 
inexpedient for the House to pass the bill. But they knew 
that it would not have answered their purpose to meet the 
question in this direct way. Mr. Bright declared that the 
bill that was not before them was made an excuse and 
weapon for destroying the bill that was before them, 2 and 
Mr. Layard 3 pointed out that the country at large was feel¬ 
ing that the real issue at stake was, not whether the bill pro¬ 
posed by the Government or any other bill should pass, but 
whether the question of Reform should be entertained at 
all 4 — a statement of fact which corresponds closely with 
the evidence of the leading speakers and writers out of doors. 

In addition to the time needed for the speeches for and 
against the bill, and for and against the amendment, much 
attention was given to the opinions, the inconsistencies of 
thought and action, and the conduct of individual members. 
John Bright, because of his prominence in the Reform 1 ques¬ 
tion and because it was assumed that he had influenced the 
Government to* bring in the single-barrelled bill, came in for 
so much attention that one 6 of the members declared he 
must speak of Bright lest he be open to the accusation of 
having neglected a form, the constant observance of which 
by preceding speakers led him to conclude that it was one of 
courtesy and etiquette. Lord Elcho, an Adullamite, made 6 


1 Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 16, 1866), p. 1387. 

4 Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 23, 1866), p. 1876. 

3 Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. 

2 Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 16, 1866), p. 1424. 

5 Captain Grosvenor, Hansard, vol. clxxxiii, p. 29. 

6 Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 19), p. 1674. 


!51] THE OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM 

a speech against the tyranny of the Saul on the Treasury 
Benches, 1 and his armor-bearer. 2 That was the motive 
which drove him and his colleagues into the Cave where they 
were, he assured the House, a most happy family daily in¬ 
creasing in number and strength, and whence they should go* 
forth to deliver Israel from oppression. When he told the 
Liberals that many of them were going to vote for the 
Government against what they knew to be right, he provoked 
the retort 3 that he was a noble Lord who after going along 
the benches with a lantern in search of what it seems he 
could not find, turned the full blaze of its. light upon, himself 
and there discovered his honest man. 

Toward the close of the debates Mr. Lowe, loudly cheered 
by the Opposition, spoke with great effect against the con¬ 
duct of the ministry, and against democracy. 4 To him it 
seemed that the measure was calculated to* destroy those 
institutions which had secured for England an amount of 
happiness and prosperity which no country had ever reached, 
or was ever likely to attain. On the following day, Disraeli 
declared that even if the noble Lord, the Member for 
Chester (Earl Grosvenor), had not come forward to oppose 
the bill, somebody on the Conservative benches must have 
done so; for while they were perfectly willing to consider a 
complete measure of Reform, and had shown their readiness 
to do so, they must still oppose this measure on account of 
objections to the county franchise. 5 Gladstone in a note¬ 
worthy speech delivered just before the division on the 
twenty-seventh of April declared that the point to be decided 
was whether the House would vote by a majority for the 

1 Gladstone. 

[■ * Bright. 

* By Mr. Coleridge, Hansard, vol. clxxxii, p. 1831. 

4 Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 26), p. 2118. 

5 Hansard, vol. clxxxiii, pp. 94 et seq. 


152 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[152 

second reading of the bill—“ that is to 1 say, for a measure 
affirming the reduction of the franchise in the counties, and 
especially in towns.” 1 In bidding for the support of the 
Opposition he warned them that by resisting great measures, 
as civil disabilities on account of religious belief, the first 
Reform Act, the repeal of the Corn Laws, they had given the 
power five out of every six years to the Liberals, and had 
reduced their influence in the country. When he sat down, 
the Speaker, writes a spectator, 2 put the question on the 
amendment in the dry technical form so puzzling to those 
unfamiliar with the proceedings. Strangers withdrew and 
members went to their respective lobbies. As the members 
returned to the seats on the floor or in the galleries great 
excitement began to manifest itself, and when finally the 
tellers walked up the floor, the House—says the writer—was 
charged as with electricity. Strangers in the galleries rose 
in their seats—Conservative M. P.’s sat upon the edges of 
benches—the Royal princes leaned forward in their incon¬ 
venient standing place and the officers of the House, partici¬ 
pating in the universal excitement, had no eyes or ears for 
any breach of rule or order. Hardly had the ominous 
words, ayes to the right, 318, noes to the left, 313, been 
uttered than there arose a wild, raging shout from floor and 
gallery. Dozens of Tories hurrahed at the very top of their 
voices. Strangers in both galleries clapped their hands. The 
Adullamites cheered as loudly as any. And Lowe, the prince 
of the revolt, the instigator and prime mover of the conspir¬ 
acy, stood up in the excitement of the movement—flushed, 
triumphant, and avenged. “ * Who would have thought there 
was so much in Bob Lowe?’ said one member to another; 

‘ why, he was one of the cleverest men in Lord Palmerston’s 
Government!’” “ 'All this comes of Lord Russell’s send- 

1 Hansard, vol. clxxxiii, p. 140. 

2 Vide Annals of onr Time. 


!53] THE 0FFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM i5 3 

ing for Goschen!’ was the reply. * Disraeli did not half so 
signally avenge himself against Peel’ interposed another; 
‘ Lowe has very nearly broken up the Liberal party.’ ” 
There he stood, that usually cold, undemonstrative, intellec¬ 
tual, venerable-looking individual, shouting himself hoarse 
like the ringleader of school boys at a successful barring out! 
The Government had been saved from downright defeat by 
only five votes, but the bill was read a second time. As the 
members stepped out into New Palace Yard the twilight of 
that long-to-be-remembered night was brightening into day. 
Early as was the hour some three hundred persons were 
assembled to see them come out, and cheer the friends of 
the bill. 

On the thirtieth of April the Chancellor of the Exche¬ 
quer expressed determination to go on with the bill. 1 The 
Government understood the situation to be this—one moiety 
of the House was prepared to accede to the proposal of the 
Government to enter upon the consideration of the fran¬ 
chise bill, upon the understanding that they would introduce 
a bill relating to the redistribution of seats and bills relating 
to the subject of Reform in Scotland and Ireland; the 
other moiety, that the House must have the whole intention 
of the Government with respect to Reform. 

On the seventh of May Gladstone produced the bill for 
the redistribution of seats. 2 By this no constituency was 
disenfranchised, but some constituencies returning two mem¬ 
bers were deprived of one of them, and no 1 less than forty- 
one small boroughs were grouped together according to 
their geographical relation in sixteen groups, returning one 
or two members each according to population. Of the 
forty-nine seats obtained by these arrangements it was pro- 

1 Hansard, vol. clxxxiii, pp. 163-166. 

3 Hansard, vol. clxxxiii, pp. 486-507. 


154 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[154 

posed to distribute twenty-six among populous counties, to 
give a third member to Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, 
and Leeds, and a second to Salford, to divide the Tower 
Hamlets into two divisions, with two 1 members each, to 
create six new electoral boroughs with one member each 
and one with two, to give a seat to- the University of London, 
and seven seats to Scotland. As to' the boundaries, what¬ 
ever enlargements should take place, the Parliamentary 
borough should follow the enlargement made for local pur¬ 
poses. Finally, the Government would not advise a pro¬ 
rogation of Parliament until the question of the franchise 
and redistribution had been disposed of. Leave was given 
to bring in the bill. The Times thought it simple in concep¬ 
tion, practical in details and just in principles, 1 although so 
far as the parties were concerned, it would throw a certain 
amount of political weight to the Liberal side. 2 This, it 
said, would be the probable effect of the lower franchise in 
towns, still more of the lower franchise in counties, and of 
the transference of seats from small towns to large ones and 
populous counties. On jthe same day the Scotch and Irish 
Reform bills were also introduced. 

The second reading of the Redistribution bill was moved 
by Gladstone on the fourteenth of May. During the even¬ 
ing Disraeli attacked the manner in which it was proposed 
to deal wi,th small boroughs as a scheme to disenfranchise 
the boroughs which had returned to the House representa¬ 
tives of the commercial, financial, colonial, and Indian in¬ 
terests. He advised the Government to withdraw the bill, 
prepare careful electoral statistics of the borough and county 
franchise, and in the next session give a good measure. Mr. 
Cardwell, 3 on behalf of the Government, refused to accept 

^he Times, May 8, 1866, editorial. 

2 Opinion of the Times, May 9, 1866, editorial. 

3 Secretary of State for the Colonies. 


155] THE 0FFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM 155 

this advice, claiming the object was to postpone Reform in¬ 
definitely. In reply to a question as to whether the Govern¬ 
ment would assent to having the bill referred to the same 
committee as that on the Representation of the People bill, 
with a view to the amalgamation of the two, the Chancellor 
of the 'Exchequer gave assent to the proposal, and then the 
bill was read a second time. 

On the twenty-eighth of May the order for committee 
was read. After a motion for the fusion of the two bills 
had been agreed to, it was moved “ That it be an instruction 
to the committee that they have power to make provision 
for the better prevention of bribery and corruption at elec¬ 
tions.” The Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to the 
motion, saying that the subject was one that amply merited 
separate discussion but could hardly be discussed to advant¬ 
age in connection with a bill for the redistribution of seats 
or a bill relating to the franchise, and that additional infor¬ 
mation was needed. 1 Mr. Osborne 2 upheld the motion, de¬ 
claring this a point which required reform even more than 
the franchise or the redistribution of seats. The Attorney 
General 3 pointed out that this was noit a proper time to 
consider the question and that the motion was a good one 
only as one means of throwing over all Reform in the pres¬ 
ent session. Mr. Bright also condemned the motion as 
really aimed at the destruction of the bill. Nevertheless 
it was carried against the Government by 248 as against 
238 votes,—Disraeli and Lowe voting wi|th the majority. 
The announcement was the occasion for great cheering 
on the part of the Opposition. The Chancellor of the 
Exchequer moved that the Speaker leave the chair, saying 
that the Government would give a dispassionate considera- 

1 Hansard, vol. clxxxiii, p. 1322. 

2 R. Bernal Osborne was an Independent Liberal. 

3 Sir Roundell Palmer. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


156 


[156 


tion to clauses on bribery but would hold to their purpose to 
go on with the bill. Captain Hayter 1 moved that the re¬ 
distribution scheme be considered an unsatisfactory measure. 

Thereupon the debate continued for four nights. In ad¬ 
dition to many details upon redistribution, many of the ar¬ 
guments of the second reading were repeated. 2 Sir George 
Grey, Secretary of State for the Home Department, at¬ 
tacked the motion as one, which, if carried, would involve 
the whole bill, 3 and as a “ mode resorted to by the right 
honorable Gentleman to get rid of the bill altogether.” To 
this speech Sir Hugh Cairns, a Conservative, replied that the 
Government did not answer criticisms and objections, and! 
did not try to promote a free discussion of the question that 
the House was anxious to have sifted. 4 He thought those 
out of doors would judge of the course which had been 
taken in this debate. Sir John Pakington 5 wanted to have 
the question settled, but ithe Government—he thought—had 
rendered that impossible by having precipitately produced a 
vague and immature measure. During the course of the 
debates John Stuart Mill spoke for the representation of 
minorities 6 and Mr. Lowe made use of a chance again to 
plead against trying anything like democracy: 


To our hands at this moment is intrusted the noble and sacred 
future of free and self-determined Government all over the 
world. We are about to surrender certain good for more 
than doubtful change; we are about to barter maxims and 
traditions that have never failed, for theories and doctrines 
that have never succeeded. Democracy you may have at any 

1 Captain Hayter was elected as a Liberal in 1865. 

2 Cf. infra, pp. 160 et seq . 

3 Hansard, vol. clxxxiii, p. 1402. 

* Hansard, vol. clxxxiii, p. 1403. 

9 A Conservative. 

•Vide chapter v. 


! 57] THE OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM 1 c ) y 

time. Night and day the gate is open that leads to that bare 
and level plain, where every ant’s nest is a mountain and 
every thistle a forest tree. But a Government such as Eng¬ 
land has, a Government, the work of no human hand, but 
which has grown up the imperceptible aggregation of cen¬ 
turies—this is a thing which we only can enjoy, which we can¬ 
not impart to others, and which, once lost, we cannot recover 
for ourselves. 1 

The Attorney General in reply declared Lowe’s motto to be: 
“ Move an inch from that point (the £10 franchise) and you 
are lost—you are on the high road to ruin 2 and, he added, 
“ When he implores and entreats us to defer this bill for an¬ 
other year, I will tell my right honorable Friend the year to 
which he wishes us to defer (the consideration of this sub¬ 
ject—it is the millennium.” Of course, many whose seats 
were to be taken away, spoke against the bill. On the other 
hand, Earl Grosvenor, now that the Redistribution bill had 
been brought in, supported the Government upon the 
ground that no resignation should be forced because of the 
state of affairs in Europe and because of the financial crisis. 3 
He said that some of the Opposition were prepared to com¬ 
promise with the Government to get the measure through. 
Disraeli, however, declared the measure ill-advised and ill- 
prepared and hoped that the good sense of the House would 
allow the question to be adjourned until next session. 4 
Gladstone said that even if the grounds against the bill for 
the redistribution of seats were good grounds, they were 
totally insufficient to justify a vote against going into 
committee upon the bill. 5 Captain Hayter by this time 

1 Hansard, vol. clxxxiii, p. 1650. 

* Hansard, vol. clxxxiii, p. 1651. 

3 Hansard, vol. clxxxiii (June 4), pp. 1812-1813. 

4 Hansard, vol. clxxxiii, pp. 1912-1913. 

5 Hansard, vol. clxxxiii (June 4), p. 1889. 


i5 8 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [158 

“ feeling certain that the measure would not be proceeded 
with in its present form in the present session ” withdrew his 
amendment. 

The House then went into committee, at which stage 
every clause was discussed in detail—and fought point by 
point with great earnestness and pertinacity on both sides. 1 
Mr. Walpole, a Conservative, proposed a £20 instead of 
the £14 county occupation franchise. This change the 
Chancellor of the Exchequer strongly opposed and the 
amendment was beaten 297 to 283. During the debates on 
this amendment, Lord Stanley 2 proposed that the clause be 
postponed, hoping to have the redistribution settled before 
the franchise clauses, lest the ministry play the trick of 
dropping the Redistribution bill altogether. Bright den¬ 
ounced this action as another attempt )to delay the bill and 
Gladstone congratulated the “ honorable Gentlemen opposite 
upon their perfect mastery of the arts of ambush.” 3 On 
a division the motion was rejected. 

The next controversy took place on the basis of value to 
be used in fixing the franchise. In place of the rental as 
the standard adopted by the Government, Mr. Hunt 4 pro¬ 
posed, 5 in respect to the county franchise, to change the 
standard by adding to the clause the words—“ such clear 
yearly value being rateable value of the premises as ascer¬ 
tained for the purpose of the Poor Rate.” Those for the 
amendment pointed out 6 the advantage of making the 
rate book the register and the security against collusion; 
those against it, the fact that the rating varied in different 
places and was not a good test. The motion was rejected. 

1 Annual Register , 1866, p. 151. 

*A Conservative. 

3 Hansard, vol. clxxxiii, p. 2068. 

4 Mr. G. W. Hunt was a Conservative. 

6 This was on June 11, 1867. 

*Cf. Annual Register, 1866, pp. 153-154. 


I59 ] THE OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM I59 

But Lord Dunkellin, 1 on the eighteenth of June, moved 
an amendment referring to the borough franchise, similar 
to Mr. Hunt’s motion. He proposed to leave out of the 
clause the words “ clear yearly ” in order to insert the word 
“ rateable.” It was argued on the one side that the rating 
was a convenient, inexpensive, and a constitutional mode of 
fixing the franchise, 2 that the rating test could be appealed 
against whereas the rental could not, 3 that as the burden of 
local taxation was calculated on the rateable value, the ad¬ 
vantage of the vote ought to be placed on the same basis; 4 
on the other, that even a £5 rating franchise would not ad¬ 
mit so many as the present bill, that the rateable value was 
a test merely for local taxation which was borne by prop¬ 
erty, and had nothing to do with an occupation franchise, 
that inequalities in rateable value must always be greater 
than in the gross estimated rental, that many, as owners of 
mines, were not rated at all and would be disfranchised. 5 
According to Bright the object was to substitute £9 for £7; 
and many argued that the real object of the amendment was 
to get rid of the bill and the Government. The Chancellor 
of the Exchequer declared, “ it is in my judgment an Amend¬ 
ment striking at the plan of enfranchisement proposed by 
the Government. So viewing it, I cannot enter into any en¬ 
gagement that we will accept an adverse vote, or regard it 
as otherwise than incompatible with the progress of the 
Bill.” 6 The question was put, that the words “ clear 
yearly ” stand. The result of the vote came—ayes 304: 

1 Lord Dunkellin had been elected in 1865 as a Liberal. 

2 Lord Dunkellin, Hansard, vol. clxxxiv, p. 540. 

8 Mr. Henley, Hansard, vol. clxxxiv, p. 568. 

4 Sir Hugh Cairns, Hansard, vol. clxxxiv, pp. 616 et seq. 

5 Gladstone, Hansard, vol. clxxxiv, pp. 550 et seq. 

6 Hansard, vol. clxxxiv, pp. 637-639. 


ifo THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [160 

noes 315; majority against the Government, eleven. Once 
again there was occasion for a great demonstration of joy 
by the Adullamites and the Conservajtives; the defeat of the 
Government produced a frantic enthusiasm unequalled by 
any of the frequent divisions of the session. 1 

The bill had failed to pass. A part of the Liberals plus 
the Conservatives had defeated a measure noit itself sot 
liberal but regarded by popular opinion as an advance in the 
right direction. Thus Parliament stood in June, 1866, op¬ 
posed to Reform, not that all who voted against the bill pro¬ 
fessed an aversion to Reform 1 , but it could not escape notice 
that many of the most telling speeches were against any 
democratic tendencies. 

Among the many arguments used against the bill the fol¬ 
lowing summary presents a number of the most important. 
In the first place there were the arguments against the bill 
itself. It was said that the bill was not wanted—that if 
there had been any great necessity for it or any desire for 
it on the part of the country, instead of the question being 
before the country for fourteen years there would not have 
been fourteen months of agitation upon it. 2 The question 
of Reform had been agitated under the most favorable cir¬ 
cumstances from 1852 to 1865. 

It had been taken up by every Administration, and supported 
and recommended by every prominent public man. It has 
had three-fourths of the press as the partisans of one side or 
the other writing in its favor. It had public meetings innu¬ 
merable, and an active agitation founded on the undisputed 
fact of 5,000,000 of unenfranchised operatives. Yet these 
cabinets were all defeated, the ministers more or less discred¬ 
ited, the bills all rejected; the agitation a failure: and the 

1 Vide Annals of Our Time and the Annual Register. 

2 Lord Elcho (an Adullamite), vol. clxxxii (April 19), p. 1664. 


l6l] THE OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM !6i 

more the question was stirred, the more vividly apparent it be¬ 
came that the projected changes were not suited to the wants 
and temper of the times, and that the country — watching, 
listening, reading, and judging—was brought slowly, but surely 
to the conviction that these changes were not founded in 
reason, that they were opposed to justice, that they were fatal 
to the growth of liberty—that they were the creed of a small 
and noisy section of politicians of extreme opinions, who had 
gained an accidental and mischievous importance from the 
fact that the two great political parties in the State were so 
evenly balanced that rival chiefs vied with one another in 
bidding for the support of that extreme minority; but that 
the general thought and education of the country—the moral¬ 
ity, the statesmanship, the patriotism of every class, from the 
highest to the lowest—clung with instinctive fervor to the in¬ 
stitutions which they saw approached with an unfriendly hand, 
and with one will and one voice forbade that that old tree of 
English liberty which had been the slow growth of ages and 
the admiration of nations should be transformed into the 
brazen image of ignorance and intolerance which the worship¬ 
pers of Trans-Atlantic equality wanted to set up. 1 

It was said that the old £10 formed a line giving a precedent 
and a principle. “ It afforded a precedent, because it formed 
part of a great historical settlement which had worked well 
and done admirable service for thirty-five years. It con¬ 
stituted a principle, and one recognized throughout the 
whole of our English Constitution, that the franchise was 
a trust and not .a right.” 2 

Besides, the electoral statistics upon which the bill was 
based, were not satisfactory, said Viscount Cranborne. 3 
It should be known who the new masters were to be, be¬ 
fore the House of Commons was asked to transfer the power 

1 Mr. Horsman (Adullamite), Hansard, vol. clxxxii, pp. 98-99- 

*Mr. Laing (Adullamite), Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 12), p. 81. 

* Conservative, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 23), p. 876. 


! 52 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [162 

over the legislation, the taxation, and the finances of the 
country from that section of the community holding it to 
another section. The question of the number to be enfran¬ 
chised should be carefully studied especially since a great 
increase in that number would result from having the £5 
and £6 houses changed to houses to be rented at £7.* 
Another defect of the bill was that it would suppress the 
agricultural interests, especially by permitting the city voters 
not within the limits of the represented boroughs and those 
from the numerous towns which were unrepresented to in¬ 
undate the county constituencies with urban and trading 
votes of £14 rental. 2 

The bill was going to enfranchise under a new name one 
class of men who had been disfranchised heretofore—the 
“ freemen ”—a class in which Mr. Lowe and the Adulla- 
mites had no confidence. 3 One member 4 opposed the bill 
as a scheme on the part of the North of England which had 
grown important by the rise of the great manufacturing 
towns, to get more power in the body politic than it had 
hitherto possessed. 

One of the chief sources of opposition was due to the 
fact that it was only a franchise bill. And when this defect 
was remedied, 5 the additional provisions were denounced as 
lacking that care, deliberation, and foresight which ought 
to have been exercised by the Government. 6 The principle 

*Lord Elcho, quoting from letter, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 23), 
p. 963. 

’Mr. Adderley (Conservative), Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 16), 
P. 1414- 

8 Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13), p. 148. 

4 C/. Mr. Beresford Hope (Independent Conservative), Hansard, 
vol. clxxxii (April 19), p. 1695. 

6 Cf. supra, p. 153. 

•Sir John Pakington (Conservative), Hansard, vol. clxxxiii, p. 1573. 


163] THE OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM x63 

of equal electoral districts, or an approximation to such dis¬ 
tricts, was attacked as the wrong principle upon which a 
redistribution bill ought to be based, 1 and the anomalies 
created by l he bill were declared to be worse than those 
existing. 2 * The granting of three members to counties 8 was 
to Lowe the mere worship of numbers. 4 As it seemed to 
him, every member had two separate and distinct duties to 
perform. He was the representative of the borough which 
sent him to Parliament, and he had to look after its local 
interests to the best of his power. That was a small and, 
in the mild and just times in which he was living, generally 
a comparatively easy duty, but his greater and more pre¬ 
eminent duty was to look after the affairs of the Empire. 
Sir Hugh Cairns objected to the grouping, saying that there 
was no harmony in the boroughs put together, that bribery 
would go on in the grouped boroughs because the telegraph 
had done away with the advantage of having polling places 
twenty or thirty miles apart, that large constituencies were 
expensive because elections were sure to be contested, that 
Scotland had no claim to more members inasmuch as its 
population, wealth, and interests were not increasing in 
proportion to England’s, and that the bill should have given 
special attention to boundaries. 5 

Finally, a motive for opposing the bill—a motive which 
may have influenced a number of the Adullamites—was well 
expressed ny Lord Elcho. He dreaded the bill not only on 
account of the provisions which it contained, but because 
it met “ with support from persons who have hitherto been 

1 Mr. Lowe, Hansard, vol. cixxxiii, p. 1627. 

'Ibid., p. 1635. 

* As was done to some extent by the Redistribution of Seats bill. 

* Hansard, vol. cixxxiii, p. 1639. 

4 A Conservative, Hansard, vol. cixxxiii (June 1), pp. 1698 et seq. 


164 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [i6 4 

in favor of the very widest possible extension of the fran¬ 
chise.” 1 

In addition to the arguments against the bill itself there 
were arguments against the present Government dealing 
with the question of Reform. Mr. Horsman suggested that 
the Government was not strong enough to deal with it. 2 
It was said (that Reform was again brought up to excite 
popular feeling on behalf of a weak Government. 3 The 
faults of the bill were attributed to the fact that it had been 
drawn not so much with regard to the wants and require¬ 
ments of the case as to satisfy the requirements of particular 
constituencies and to ensure the support of certain 
politicians. 4 

But arguments of far greater interest than these given, 
are the ones against any Reform. Sometimes they took 
the shape of a denial of the need for Reform, sometimes 
they were a portrayal of democracy and the evils thereof, 
sometimes an appeal to patriotism—a plea that the Consti¬ 
tution, of glorious origin and history, of happy influence 
upon a great nation, be not ruined by the acceptance of the 
American doctrine of representation according to numbers. 

As to the first of these arguments—it was said that there 
was nothing to be done by a reformed or a new Parliament. 
Mr. Laing declared that 

Previous to 1832 the Conservative element so far preponder¬ 
ated that the country was brought into great danger; it was 
impossible to effect salutary changes in time, and, conse¬ 
quently, matters were brought to a point where a choice had 

1 Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 19), p. 1672. 

1 Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 12), p. 100. 

9 Cf. Viscount Royston (Conservative), vol. clxxxii, p. 2130, and 
Horsman, vol. clxxxii, p. 92. 

4 Mr. Doulton (Conservative), Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 19), 
rp. I7II- 


165] THE OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM 165 

to be made between the alternative of Reform or revolution. 
But since the Reform Act of 1832, could any one fairly and 
justly say that the Conservative element had unduly prepon¬ 
derated in the political representation of this country? Had 
not abuse after abuse been reformed until at last we had no 
practical abuses left? (“ Oh.”) He repeated that deliber¬ 
ately. Improvement had been carried to such an extent that 
it was no longer possible for the public opinion of the country 
to declare, “ There is something which ought to be done, and 
the Parliament of the country will not do it.” There were no 
longer any great questions upon which the opinion of the 
country was not in entire accordance with the opinions repre¬ 
sented in the House. The existing system worked admirably, 
yet Parliament was asked to re-open most exciting questions. 1 

It was affirmed that the object of government is to con¬ 
struct the best machinery for the purpose to which it is to 
be applied, and that the present government was the best 
possible! 2 

Reform was not needed because it was no more necessary 
for workingmen to be represented by workingmen than it 
was necessary for clergymen to be represented by clergy¬ 
men. 3 Besides, how could the real workingman who lived 
by his own labor sit in Parliament unless provided with the 
means to do so ? The middle class, “ which goes upwards 
into the highest extreme of society, and penetrates into the 
lowest, was the class of all others that could exercise the 
best influence on the policy and the government of the 
country.” 4 

1 Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 12), pp. 79-80; cf., also, Mr. Lowe, 
Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13)» p. 161, and Mr. Meller (Con¬ 
servative), ibid., p. 187. 

% Cf. Mr. Adderley, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 16), p. 1421, and Mr. 
Lowe, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13), p. 154. 

3 Mr. Gathorne Hardy (Conservative), Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 
19), p. 1741. 

4 Mr. Gregory (Adullamite), Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 20), p. 1795 - 


x 66 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [166 

Change in the electoral laws was unnecessary because 
higher rents and higher wages—due to the discovery of gold 
in California and Australia, emigration, the vast extension 
in trade and commerce, the increasing demand for labor— 
had caused enfranchisement by a gradual process. 1 And 
the proportion of the working classes now, instead of being 
so insignificant as had been supposed, amounted to 26 per 
cent of the whole number of the borough electors; so far 
from being rigid and inelastic that number was steadily and 
rapidly rising. 2 If one excluded from one’s calculations on 
the increase of the number of workingmen enjoying the 
franchise since 1833 the scot and lot voters, who were dying 
out, that increase would be seen to be almost double the 
number usually given. Finally Mr. Lowe told the House 
that if the working class had only 128,000 in the present 
constituencies, it was very much their own fault, because 
many more of them had the means if they chose to live in 
£10 houses. 

Furthermore the working class should not be represented 
in proportion to numbers, because according to the principle 
of the Constitution, Parliament was a mirror—a represen¬ 
tation of every class—not according to heads, not according 
to numbers, but according to everything which gives weight 
and importance in the world without, so that the various 
classes of the country might be heard, and their views ex¬ 
pressed fairly in the House of Commons without the pos¬ 
sibility of any one class outnumbering and reducing to 
silence all the other classes in the kingdom. 3 If you cor¬ 
rected the anomaly by which numbers were excluded from 
the Constitution, you had to correct also the anomaly by 
which wealth was excluded. 4 

*Mr. Lowe, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13), pp. 146 and 147. 

1 Mr. Laing, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 12), pp. 76 and 77. 

3 Sir Hugh Cairns, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 16), p. 1463. 

4 Viscount Cranborne, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13), pp. 230-231. 


167] the OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM l 6 y 

Again, it was said that those who really desired Reform 
were those who wished to bring the country to the lowest 
level of democracy; 1 that the proposition for the extension 
of the franchise was simply a rule of thumb change, a lower¬ 
ing without modification or check. It was placing the 
franchise on an incline, where once placed, it had an inevi¬ 
table tendency to reach the bottom. 2 The same necessity 
now alleged to justify the lowering of the franchise from 
£10 to £7 would under the same pressure take it down from 
£7 to £4 or even to 4s. 3 As to the argument that the urban 
working class had been admitted to a fourth share of the 
suffrage without danger, that they had been admitted with¬ 
out Parliament’s realizing the fact, and that, therefore, 
there could be no danger in giving them a half share upon 
a principle which must soon give them a preponderant 
majority—such an argument reminded Sir E. Bulwer-Lytton 
of the Irishman’s bull: “ If one quince can give so good a 
flavor to an apple pie, how wonderfully good must be an 
apple pie that is all quinces.” 4 Democracy seemed to him 
to be essentially the government that belonged to societies 
in their youth when the habits of men, even more than their 
laws, produced a certain equality of manners and education. 5 
Said he: 

If there be a country in the world in which democracy would 
be a ruinous experiment, it is surely a country like England, 
with a very limited area of soil compared to the pressure of 

*Mr. Marsh (Adullamite), Hansard, v ol. clxxxii (March 12), pp.61-62. 

2 Mr. G. Hardy, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 19), p. 1746. 

8 Mr. Horsman, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 20), p. 1844. 

4 .Sir E. Bulwer-Lytton (a Conservative by this time although he had 
stood for the Reform bill of 1832), Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 13), 
p. 1243. 

6 Ibid., p. 1244. 


x 58 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [ 168 

its population, with a commerce so based upon credit and 
national prestige, that it would perish for ever if by any 
neglect of democratic economy, or, what is more probable, any 
adventure of democratic rashness, our naval power were de¬ 
stroyed ; and with differences of religious sects so serious that 
we should find it impossible to precede democracy by that 
universal and generous system of education without which it 
would be madness to make the working class the sovereign 
constituency of a Legislative Assembly. 

Mr. Lowe had learned at Oxford that democracy was a 
form of government in which the poor, being very many, 
governed the whole country, including the rich, who 1 were 
few, and for the benefit of the poor, and he feared a govern¬ 
ment of the rich by the poor. 1 

Moreover, many other evils resulting from democracy 
were depicted. Bribery would be greatly increased. 2 * To 
those who said that enlarging the number of voters would 
tend to do away with bribery, Mr. Lowe gave answer that 
such a remedy was like turning one hundred sound cattle 
among half a dozen diseased ones with the hope of doing 
good to the latter. The sound ones were very apt to be in¬ 
fected, he thought. 31 Again, adding a large number of 
persons to the constituencies would increase the expenses of 
candidates, and it would enormously increase the expenses 
of the management of elections, even supposing that every¬ 
thing was conducted in a legitimate and fair manner. 4 It 
would weaken the executive, “ because the moment you 
have universal suffrage it always happens that the man who 

1 Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 26), p. 2095. 

* Mr. Gregory, Hansard , vol. clxxxii (April 20), p. 1792. 

1 Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 26), p. 2107. 

4 Mr. Lowe, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13), pp. 148-149; Mr. Laing, 
Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 12), p. 83. 


l 6 g] THE OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM ^ 

elects despises the elected.” 1 It compelled a limitation to 
the powers and authority of the representative chamber as 
was shown in America and France where the popular 
chamber had not the same voice in foreign affairs and in 
peace and war. 2 Democracies were for war and against 
free trade. 3 

Mr. Lowe was not tKe only member of Parliament who 
could not trust the working classes. Others 4 there were, 
who could not place implicit trust in the workingman in bor¬ 
oughs and for this reason: he was always engaged in strikes 
and would be the cause of sending capital and business to 
foreign countries; and he would believe almost everything 
told him by his leaders. As to the representatives of the 
workingmen,—one could see in America, where the people 
had undisputed power, that they did not send honest, hard¬ 
working men to represent them in Congress, but traffickers 
in office, bankrupts, men who had lost their character and 
had been driven from every respectable way of life, and 
who had taken up politics as a last resort. 5 * * And as to 
their laws— 

Under the democratic institutions of America they had such 
legislation as the Maine Liquor Law: 8 and in this country, 

1 Disraeli, Hansard, vol. clxxxiii (April 27), p. 93. 

*Bulwer-Lytton, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 13), pp. 1248-9. 

3 Lowe, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 26), p. 2105. 

l Cf., for instance, the words of Mr. Banks Stanhope (Conservative) 
in Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 12), p. 1217. 

5 An observation which Mr. Lowe made, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 
26), p. 2107. 

•The first state prohibitory law in Maine was passed in 1851, and, 

since its enactment, has been amended somewhat during almost every 
session. Under this “Maine law” the manufacture and sale of in¬ 
toxicating liquors, except the sale for medicinal purposes, etc., were 

prohibited, but the enforcement of the law devolved upon the county 
attorney and the sheriff and his deputies. For medical purposes, an 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


170 


[170 


where trades unions legislated for their fellow-workmen, the 
result was that the houses and workshops of those who did 
not assent to the legislation of those unions were blown up 
by gunpowder. In Australia the influence of trades unions 
was more extensive than here; there they operated on Parlia¬ 
ment with a view to give their measures the force of law, and 
a deputation from trades unions had urged on the government 
there the propriety of introducing an eight hours labor bill. 1 


The franchise should not be indiscriminately lowered, 
but rather given to the working classes as a reward for 
good conduct and provident habits. It was evident 2 that 
the present working-class ten-pound householders were 
superior men of their class. But if the franchise were in¬ 
discriminately lowered there would be admitted to the privi¬ 
lege of voting those of not so hi glci a character and those 
who had not been so provident and careful to lodge their 
families in comfortable houses. The franchise was not 
given as a right but as a trust for the benefit of the country, 
and in the selection of the trustees, they must consider who* 
were the best qualified to hold it. 3 The moral aspect of 
the question must be considered. 

agency, authorized by municipal officers, was established. Opponents 
of the law have claimed it has been either a dead letter or a license 
rather than a prohibitory law, and that widespread corruption has 
come from its pretended enforcement. They became so strong in 
numbers that in 1911 prohibition was saved by only a few hundred 
votes, and even as late as 1914-1916 the enforcement of the law was 
very lax. In 1917, however, the legislature gave the executive the 
machinery for absolute enforcement and the law can no longer be 
called a “ dead letter.” Vide William MacDonald, The Government 
of Maine (London, 1902), pp. 159-161, and for the most recent account 
(by a partisan of prohibition) and a bibliography, Ernest Gordon, The 
Maine Law (New York, 1919). 

1 Mr. Marsh, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 12), p. 62. 

J Mr. Laing, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 12), p. 83. 

•Mr. Horsfall (Conservative), Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 12), 
p. 1186. 


iyi] THE OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM I7I 

Enfranchising a number of the workingmen would not be 
enfranchising that great number of minds all independently 
turned upon the same questions from different points of 
view, which the widening of the franchise would be in other 
portions of the social polity. It would be merely perform¬ 
ing a multiplication sum, and developing the same single in¬ 
stincts, single prejudices, single desires, and single opinions 
influenced by one newspaper and one set of ideas. There 
might be expected, therefore, further claims as soon as this 
bill was passed. 1 And when once the workingmen have 
found themselves in a full majority of the whole consitu- 
ency, they 

will awake to a full sense of their power. They will say, “ we 
can do better for ourselves. Do not let us any longer be 
cajoled at elections. Let us set up shop for ourselves. We 
have objects to serve as well as our neighbors, and let us unite 
to carry those objects. We have machinery; we have our 
trades unions; we have our leaders all ready. We have the 
power of combination, as we have shown over and over again; 
and when we have a prize to fight for we will bring it to bear 
with tenfold more force than ever before/’ 2 

They might be expected most warmly to support those ex¬ 
treme Reformers who' wished to substitute direct taxation 
for all indirect taxation and would then become perfectly 
indifferent to the amount of the public expenditure. 3 They 
might be expected to have great influence in those questions 
between labor and capital, between manufacturer and mech¬ 
anic, between supply and demand, upon which the very 
existence of this commercial England depended. 4 

1 Mr. Beresford Hope, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 19), p. 1688, and 
vide, also, Viscount Cranborne, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13), p. 
234, and Sir Hugh Cairns, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 16), p. 1474. 

8 Lowe, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13), pp. 148-149. 

3 Gen. Peel (Conservative), Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 12), p. 1207. 

4 Bulwer-Lytton, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 13), p. 1248. 


IJ2 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[ 172 - 

But should the bill pass, by what special course of legisla¬ 
tion 1 was the poor man’s daughter to be enabled to view the 
face of nature as a consequence of Parliamentary Reform? * 
As for the rate of wages—that depended on “ the inflexible 
laws of supply and demand.” It was not the duty of the 
Legislature to house and feed the people, or to look after 
such things as adulterated food or industrial diseases. 3 The- 
working classes could not succeed in the attainment of 
these objects which were so much in violation of the truths 
of political economy, but the attempt to- do so might be 
more disastrous than the success of the measures themselves. 
The very fact that the men whom they trusted as their 
speakers and delegates at political meetings urged such sub¬ 
jects on the notice of their hearers, ought to be sufficient to 
warn of the danger of entering the course which proposed 
to give the working classes entire and undisputed control 
over the policy of Parliament. 

In addition to the arguments given, were those character¬ 
ized by vagueness but nevertheless often effective upon an 
audience: “We are opposed to a measure of this nature, 
which unsettles everything and settles nothing.” 4 Then, 
too, one must not forget the influence of oratory. What 
now seems at times to be a platitude, was of great effective¬ 
ness, as the editorials of the newspapers bear witness, when 
uttered by a Robert Lowe, a John Bright, oV a Gladstone. 

Refutations, of course, played an important part in the 
debates. In reply to Gladstone’s plea that those to be en- 

1 Cf. supra, pp. 98-99, a reply to Mr. Odger’s speech; note also the 
amount of harm which a reformed House might do, although no good 
could be expected of it. 

*Cranborne, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13), p. 233. 

3 Vide speech of Mr. Gregory, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 20), 
pp. 1794 - 1795 - 

4 Mr. Whiteside (Conservative), Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13), 
p. 192. 


I73 ] the official attitude toward reform i73 

franchised should not be treated as an invading* army but 
as their own flesh and blood and fellow Christians, it was 
suggested 1 that Gladstone, according to the bill, looked upon 
the £7 voters as real flesh and blood but those below as only 
gradual flesh and blood, and that if this fellow j Christian 
theory were pushed to the utmost, should not the five millions 
of adult women in the country be considered ? 2 3 

Gladstone’s arguments that the working classes deserved 
more representation because of their share of taxation was 
retorted to in several ways. Even admitting the taxation 
of the working classes to be three-sevenths, said one, 3, by 
far the greater portion of that was paid on articles of spirits, 
beer, and tobacco. Certainly it was most extraordinary in 
estimating the fitness of persons for the franchise, to main¬ 
tain that a class is entitled to a larger share in the represen¬ 
tation in exact proportion to the larger quantity of beer and 
spirits which its members consume. Another 4 saw a fal¬ 
lacy in the income argument because the income of the 
workingmen was payment for their labor from the capital 
of others ; another, 5 because the figures on the income refer¬ 
red to all members of the working class, whereas the bill 
would not admit all. 

Against the speeches of Bright to the effect that some¬ 
thing should be done in time before the working classes 
became excited, the opponents talked about yielding to 
intimidation. 6 

As for fulfilling the pledges—a subject of so much dis- 

1 Bulwer-Lytton, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 13), p. 1246. 

2 Mr. Banks Stanhope, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 12), p. 1217. 

3 Mr. Laing, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 13), p. 1320. 

4 Mr. Banks Stanhope, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 12), p. 1217. 

6 Lowe, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 26), pp. 2092-2093. 

'Vide, for instance, Bulwer-Lytton, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 13), 
p. 1244. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


174 


[174 


cussion — Disraeli said that no Parliament could be bound 
by the acts of its predecessors, except so far as they had 
taken the forms of law; and such forms Parliament had the 
power to revise. 1 

The Liberals being the authors of the bill, found them¬ 
selves quite often on the defensive. Among their speeches 
are to be found replies to most of the important arguments 
of the Adullamites and the Conservatives. For instance, in 
defense of the bill, they declared that there was agitation 
for Reform but it was of a peaceful and orderly character; 2 
that what excitement there was on the bill, was for it; 3 that 
a feeling prevailed, universally throughout the country, that 
the whole number of electors was much too' small to afford 
a satisfactory representation of the people, and that the 
largest class in the country, that class which, most of all, 
made the nation, was specially excluded. 4 It was predicted 
that there might not always be the same political calm in 
the country as was now happily prevailing; and that if any 
great disasters should happen to the people, and in the midst 
of their misery they should also be goaded by a sense of 
wrong, they would not appeal to the House in a calm and 
moderate tone. 5 Besides it had often been alleged against 
the settlement of other great questions that the change was 
not required because not demanded; the Opposition main¬ 
taining that the people did not want Reform, because they 
were so quiet and orderly, led one to the conclusion from this 
kind of argument that if the people did desire it, they would 
have to resort to other than constitutional means to obtain 


1 Hansard, vol. clxxxiii (April 27), p. 75. 

2 Captain Grosvenor, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 12), p. 88. 

3 The Attorney General, Hansard, vol. clxxxiii (May 31), p. 1659. 

4 Mr. Bright, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 23), p. 1883. 

5 Mr. Maguire, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 16), p. 1374, and Mr. 
Baines, Hansard, vol. clxxxiii (April 27), p. 59. 


ly 5] THE OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM 

it. 1 Also it was said that citizenship together with its ac¬ 
companying privileges was an inducement for laborers to 
go to the colonies, so that England was losing strong and 
skillful arms. 2 3 As to the virtue of the sacred £10 line,— 
£7 was held to be as safe a point now as £10 was in 1832.* 
According to the great progress in education, in prudential 
habits, as shown by the savings banks’ returns, and in 
various other respects, which had been made by the working 
class, the bill of 1832 was not fitted for 1866. 4 

Inasmuch as there were found in the constituencies at 
the present moment a large number of workingmen whom 
honorable members opposite did not suspect to be there, Mr. 
Goschen thought minutely exact electoral statistics not so 
important; 5 * Gladstone complained that the Opposition in 
dealing with the statistics acted as if they were engaged in 
ascertaining the numbers of an invading army.® In reply 
to the cry that the bill was suppressing the agricultural in¬ 
terests,—where, it was asked, 7 would the landowners be if 
influence in elections were merely proportionate to numbers l 
The bill, of course, was only a franchise bill, but it was 
declared to be distinct, clear, without any tricks—without 
semblance of giving something in one clause, and then with¬ 
drawing that something in the clause that followed. 8 The 
Reform question had been one of franchise more than redis- 

1 Mr. Villiers, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13), pp. 176-177. 

*Mr. Fawcett, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13), p. 208. 

3 Mr. Young, Solicitor General for Scotland, Hansard, vol. clxxxii 
(April 20), p. 1809. 

4 Sir Francis Crossley, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 12), p. JO. 

6 Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 23), p. 878. 

• Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 23), p. 873. 

7 Sir Francis Goldsmid, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 13), p. 1278. 

8 Mr. Bright, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13), p. 209. 


Ij 6 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [176 

tribution all along. 1 The extension of the franchise affected 
a particular portion of the population; the redistribution 
of seats did not; it affected all. Derby’s Government in 
1859 had regarded the question of the franchise as the more 
important. 2 Gladstone pointed out that of the one hundred 
and seventeen borough members who entered into partic¬ 
ulars on the subject of Reform before their constituents, no 
more than sixteen referred to the redistribution of seats, 
and of those sixteen all were willing to vote for the bill. 3 
The Redistribution bill, when added, Gladstone defended as 
not creating a single anomaly but only reproducing a much 
milder form of the old anomalies. 4 He defended the group¬ 
ing by pointing out that the system worked well in Wales, 
and in general answered the objections of the Opposition. 5 
The Radicals supported the measure not because it was ade¬ 
quate but because it was good to some extent and because 
they preferred such a bill to force. 6 

In defense of the Government the point was made that it 
was far better situated to pass the bill than the coalition 
was to defeat it, since such a combination of Conservatives 
and moderate Liberals would fall to pieces at the moment 
of victory. 7 

The arguments set forth by the opponents of the bill, 
which may be classed as arguments against any further Re¬ 
form acts, were often well met. It was shown that many 
of the same arguments used against this bill were used 

'Mr. Bright, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 23), pp. 1879-1880. 

5 Mr. Bright, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 23), p. 1887. 

8 Hansard, vol. clxxxiii (April 27), p. 133. 

4 Hansard, vol. clxxxiii (June 4), pp. 1879 et seq. 

*Cf. long speech on June 4. 

•Mr. Bright, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13), pp. 222-223 and else¬ 
where. 

’Mr. Childers, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 26), p. 2171. 


iyy] THE OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM jyy 

against the bill of 1832 which now was SO' reverently upheld. 1 
Even if, according to the electoral statistics, the working 
class now had 25 per cent of the votes, they did not have 
25 per cent of the representation to the House. 2 Reform 
was needed because there were abuses to be done away with: 
a larger representation of the working class would have a 
happy effect in bringing about an early settlement of some 
important questions affecting capital and labor. 3 * The work¬ 
ing classes indeed had many grievances of which they had 
a right to complain. 4 While they were laboring for them¬ 
selves, and working out their own ideas, how had the Legis¬ 
lature helped them? For instance, had it housed, fed, or 
educated them? There was the question o\ arbitration 
courts, as connected with the labor problem, which had been 
handed backwards and forwards, sometimes in one House 
and sometimes in another. Then there was the question of 
the Master and Workmen’s Acts; the question of the work- 
house infirmaries; the question of dangerous and unwhole¬ 
some trades. Would any one who looked at this subject 
fairly and dispassionately say that if the class upon whom 
these interests pressed—who worked in these workshops and 
lived in these hovels—had been fairly represented, their con¬ 
dition would not have been improved? As an instance of 
the want of sympathy on the part of the House with the 
working class, there might be mentioned the existing laws 
regulating the sale of alcoholic drinks; for though a very 
large majority of the working class complained of them; as 
throwing temptations to insobriety in their way, the only 
answer they got from Parliament was that they ought to 

1 Ibid., pp. 2168 et seq. 

7 Mr. Goschen, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 23), p. 1967. 

5 Mr. Baxter, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 13), p. 1237. 

4 Mr. Thomas Hughes, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 19), pp. 1707 et seq. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


I 7 8 


[178 


have resolution enough to resist those temptations. An¬ 
other 1 asked, if there were no practical abuses in the year of 
grace, 1866, would Ireland be in her present condition? 
Would there be a rampant church in this country? Would 
the old land question remain unsettled? Would the en¬ 
ormous and profligate expenditure still be going on to the 
same extent as was declaimed against in 1859 by the Chan¬ 
cellor of the Exchequer, when he said he could not answer 
for the consequences if such an enormous outlay were con¬ 
tinued ? The best thing that could happen in this country 
would be a healthy admixture of the artisan class among the 
members of this House. Concerning the argument that 
the present government was the best possible and that the 
electoral system was all that could be desired, Mr. Baines 
pointed out that in 1830 the Duke of Wellington affirmed 
that no conceivable form of representation could excel in 
excellence and adaptation to its ends the then existing 
system,, that the Reform Act of 1832 was declared by the Con¬ 
servative party in Parliament to be nothing less than a revo¬ 
lution calculated to subject the intelligence and education of 
the country to the ascendency of the uneducated classes and 
the mobocracy of the country. 2 Many practical grievances 
which existed before 1832 had been removed in conse¬ 
quence of that very infusion into the House of the popular 
element which Conservative members declared at the time 
to be a revolution. He believed that there were good 
grounds for expecting a further measure in the same direc¬ 
tion to be attended with the like beneficial effects.—More¬ 
over, in a case of great emergency, it would not be well to 
have large sections of the people feel that they had no 
sphere in the government of the country. 3 


1 Mr. Osborne, Hansard, vol. clxxxiii (June 9), p. 1819. 

* Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 12), pp. 84-85. 

* Mr. Villiers, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13), pp. 175 and 176. 


l 7 g] THE OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM l7 g 

Indeed, Reform was needed in order to allow the work¬ 
ingman to be represented by members of his social class. 
What, it was asked, do 1 members of the House know about 
the workingman’s view of trade unions, strikes, and ap- 
penticeships? Every man and every class has erroneous 
opinions to be checked up only by contact with others. The 
questions, which are likely each year to assume a greater im¬ 
portance in this House, are questions affecting capital and 
labor, and many gentlemen who now consider themselves 
the representatives of the working class are notably capital¬ 
ists, and on such questions are more likely to sympathize 
with their order than with labor. 2 * John Bright, for in¬ 
stance, had always been opposed to the operatives on the 
question of factory legislation. While much was said 
of the danger and impropriety of giving the working classes 
a predominance in Parliament, it was the complaint of 
one member that he had heard nothing of the impropriety of 
the opposite course—the predominance of the middle clas¬ 
ses—“ indeed the working classes being in a minority seems 
to be accepted as of perfectly unquestionable right.” 8 An¬ 
other 4 complained: 

I find that 217 of this House’s Members are either directly 
connected with or are actual members of the aristocracy. 
Talk of trade unions! Why, is not this House a trades union 
to a certain extent? (Mr. Bright: “ Hear, Hear! ”) Have we 
not 217 members who constitute to all intents and purposes a 
trades union? But it is said, do they all give their votes on 
one side? No; like the Trade unions, they differ in their 
political sentiments. I find, on referring to Mr. Sandford’s 
History of Great Families , that there are no less than 1,500 

1 J. S. Mill, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 13), pp. 1259-1260. 

2 Mr. Fawcett, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13), p. 206. 

8 Mr. Graham, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 19), p. 1653. 

4 Mr. Osborne, Hansard, vol. clxxxiii (June 4), pp. 1818-1819. 


!8o the ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [180 

members of great families who constitute the whole of the 
Upper Chamber, and one-third of this House, and yet we hear 
honorable Gentlemen talk of the necessity of keeping out the 
artizan class. 

It was denied that the enfranchisement of the working 
classes was actually in course of being effected by a natural 
process. 1 No proof was to be found for the statement 
that there was a rapid growth of the working classes among 
the ten-pound householders. When the first register was 
made up after 1832, it was found that the proportion of 
electors to male adults in England and Wales was one in 
five—that one out of every five male adults had a vote—and 
that proportion was still continuing in 1865. 2 Only a small 
portion of the working class could hope to receive income 
enough to reach the ten-pound line. 3 And, although many 
artisans had risen to wealth and eminence from the hum¬ 
blest walks of life and were deserving of much credit, they 
were not representative men of their class. 4 

The Constitution would not be endangered by gradual 
changes made in time or wise concessions gracefully given 
but by a policy of determined resistance to all changes, 
and the persistent refusal to grant reasonable popular de¬ 
mands. 5 Gladstone thought the noble Constitution of Eng¬ 
land had struck deep roots in the soil and was fixed there 
in a manner to defy the harmful effects of such a slight 
change as would result from 1 a £3 reduction in the franchise 
qualifications, 6 

1 Gladstone, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 12), p. 1142. 

5 Mr. Milner Gibson, Hansard , vol. clxxxii (April 19), p. 1726. 

8 Gladstone, Hansard , vol. clxxxii (March 12), p. 54. 

4 Mr. Thomas Hughes, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 19), p. 1706. 

5 Mr. Baxter, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 13), p. 1230. 

* Hansard, vol. clxxxiii (April 27), p. 123. 


181] THE official ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM jgi 

Of those who alleged to see in the bill an inevitable ten¬ 
dency towards democracy on the ground that the franchise 
was being placed on an incline, Bright asked: 

Did any honorable Gentleman sitting in this House ever vote 
upon any measure of arrangement and organization like this 
one, and could confidently assure himself that the measure 
would be final? He must have a very poor notion of what 
our children will be if he thinks them less competent to decide 
such questions for themselves than we are at present to de¬ 
cide them. 1 

And, though this bill gave nothing like democracy, what 
were the great evils which were supposed to come with 
any tendency in that direction? Large masses could not 
be so easily bribed as a few people. 2 Besides, said Mr. 
Layard, 3 “ You have no right to throw it in the teeth of 
the workingmen that they are unfit to exercise the fran¬ 
chise because they are corrupt, whilst you (i. e., Members of 
the House) are their corruptors. (Great confusion and 
interruptions from the Opposition.)” The workingmen 
would not be anxious for war, for with their property they 
had interest in taxes. 4 Look at the colonies where they had 
the right of voting. 5 The financial condition was good; 
there was a liberal provision for public worship; the votes 
for public education would shame this House; they tended to 
their own defense; and their protectionist members were 
returned largely by the agricultural constituencies, not by 
the working class. In Australia, said Mr. Fawcett, prop¬ 
erty is as secure, law is as justly administered, as here; 

1 Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13), p. 213. 

1 Mr. Baxter, Hansard , vol. clxxxii (April 13), p. 1236. 

• Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 16), p. 1449. 

4 Mr. Layard, Hansard , vol. clxxxii, p. 1447. 

5 Mr. Childers, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 26), pp. 2158-9. 


iS2 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [182 

“ and they at least have not, as we have, a burden of desti¬ 
tution constantly reminding our statesmen that they have 
left their highest mission unfulfilled, and that is to wage suc¬ 
cessful war against pauperism.” 1 Mr. Goschen thought 
it of little use to argue from conditions in the colonies and 
America inasmuch as there was a difference in the relative 
position of labor and capital in those countries as com¬ 
pared with England. 2 No constituencies in England, how¬ 
ever, in which the working class had the decided influence 
now were returning demagogues as their representatives. 3 

To assume that the working class would vote en masse 
was no more right than to assume that the middle class or 
the upper class would do so. 4 Workingmen followed their 
own opinions, 5 not those of their leaders as could be seen 
from their disagreement with Cobden on the subject of the 
Russian war. No political union could be arranged be¬ 
tween the miners of Cornwall, the masons of London, and 
the mill hands of the North, unless a real bond of union 
should be given by keeping them, as wage receivers, from 
the franchise. And if excluded too long they might at 
last be induced to make their trade unions a political en¬ 
gine. But if this bill passed it would be final for their 
political lives, because it was not easy to get up a political 
agitation. The workingmen did not find it easy to leave 
work and lose wages for the purpose of attending political 
meetings. 

The Liberals had, of course, a good argument when they 
mentioned the advance in general intelligence of the work- 

1 Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13), p. 204. 

2 Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 23), p. 1966. 

3 Mr. Layard, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 16), p. 1449. 

4 Mr. Fawcett, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (March 13), pp. 205-6. 

6 W. E. Forster, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 16), pp. 1391-3. 


183] THE OFFICIAL ATTITUDE TOWARD REFORM ^3 

ing class since 1832. Mr. Baines, a member in whose 
statistics the House had a degree of confidence, stated that 
in 1865 there were 3,100,000 scholars in day schools com¬ 
pared with 1,250,000 in 1832. In 1831 the number of 
copies of newspapers circulating in England was 38,000,000; 
in 1864 the number had increased to 546,000,000. The 
circulation of the magazines and serials, weekly and 
monthly, literary, scientific, religious, and moral, had in¬ 
creased in the same time from 400,000 copies a month to 
6,000,000 a month—an increase for which the working 
class was in no small degree responsible. 1 They were able 
to carry on successfully such organizations as the Amal¬ 
gamated Society of Engineers; 2 they were successful with 
their co-operative societies; 3 they were interested in librar¬ 
ies. 4 Besides they had shown a most commendable patience 
and fortitude in Lancashire during the cotton famine which 
was the theme for much praise. As a class, too, the work¬ 
ingmen needed representation. John Stuart Mill cham¬ 
pioned them: 

While so many classes, comparatively insignificant in num¬ 
bers, and not supposed to be freer from class partialities or 
interests than their neighbors, are represented, some of them, 
I venture to say, greatly over-represented in this House, there 
is a class, more numerous than all the others, and therefore, 
as a mere matter of human feeling, entitled to more consid¬ 
eration—weak as yet, and therefore, needing representation 
the more, but daily becoming stronger, and more capable of 
making its claims good — and this class is not represented. 
We claim, then, a large and liberal representation of the work¬ 
ing classes, on the conservative theory of the Constitution. 

1 Hansard, vol. clxxxiii (April 27), pp. 57-58. 

* Vide Mr. Thomas Hughes, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 19), p. 1705. 

s Vide Mr. Baxter, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 13), p. 1235. 

4 Vide Gladstone, Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 12), p. 1132. 


!84 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [184 

We demand that they be represented as a class, if represented 
they cannot be as human beings. 1 

In conclusion it may be stated that the belief of the work¬ 
ing class that the majority of the members of the House 
of Commons stood against Reform was not without founda¬ 
tion. Arguments against any extension of the suffrage had 
been boldly spoken; the Conservatives and Adullamites had 
tried to have the bill put off, had tried to cast it aside through 
various amendments, had tried to make it even less liberal 
than it was, and had finally defeated it. One can argue 
that the Conservatives may have been more opposed to the 
bill and its authors than to Reform itself; but certain it is 
that the bill of 1866 contained more promising material 
from which could have been constructed a good bill than 
the platitudes put forth by Disraeli in the following session, 
which were changed by a House under pressure into one of 
the most important measures of the century. And if the 
Conservatives as a party were anxious to grant electoral 
Reform their past history gave no evidence of the desire. 
At least the working class expressed itself more than once 
in 1866 as seeing in the men of the Conservative and Adul- 
lamite faith—men elected to represent England—strong op¬ 
ponents to Reform. 


1 Hansard, vol. clxxxii (April 13), pp. 1255-1256. 


CHAPTER V 


Disraeli's Success with Reform in 1867 

The Adullamites and the Conservatives had given the 
Liberal Government an adverse vote in passing Lord Dun- 
kellin’s amendment to the Reform bill for the rateable value 
instead of the gross estimated rental as the basis of the 
franchise. Resignation was the natural method of proce¬ 
dure for Gladstone and his colleagues. They might have 
demanded dissolution but Mr. Brand, the whip, thought that 
such a course would be unpopular with the Liberals on ac¬ 
count of election expenses. 1 Moreover, an appeal to the 
country on the Reform question would have had the effect 
of breaking up the party by causing the Palmerstonian 
Liberals to go to the Opposition at a time when the country 
itself was more or less apathetic. They might have gone 
on with the bill, trusting to reverse the vote on report or 
they might have taken shelter under a general vote of con¬ 
fidence. However, at a cabinet meeting on June 25, 1866, 
resignation was agreed upon. Gladstone himself was glad 
to have the matter near its close. 2 The Queen, when in¬ 
formed of her ministers' intentions expressed opposition 
to change because c f the critical situation on the Continent.* 
But Russell and Gladstone after an interview with Her 
Majesty and a consultation with Brand and the cabinet de¬ 
cided finally (June 26) on resignation. “ At six,” writes 

5 Cf . Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. ii, pp. 207 et seq. 

* Ibid., p. 209. 

* The Seven Weeks’ War had broken out on June 18. 

1851 


185 


j86 THE ENGLITH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [ x86 

Gladstone, “ I went down and made my explanation for the 
government. I kept to facts without epithets, but I thought 
as I went on that some of the words were scorching. A 
crowd and great enthusiasm in Palace Yard on departure. 5 ’ 

Although Gladstone’s speech on this occasion may not 
strike a reader of to-day as being especially “ scorching ” 
under the circumstances, he cannot help noticing that it is 
a clear and definite statement of the attitude taken by the 
Government on the situation. The Chancellor of the Ex¬ 
chequer showed that Dunkellin’s motion was absolutely un¬ 
acceptable because there was no form; or figure of enfran¬ 
chisement founded on mere relation to rateable value 
which would express faithfully and exactly the scale of 
enfranchisement best suited, in the Government’s opinion, 
to the public interest. In 16 boroughs the adoption of a 
franchise founded on a rateable value of above £6 would en¬ 
franchise a number at least equal to the number the bill 
proposed to enfranchise. But in 39 boroughs a rateable 
value of £6, in 112 boroughs a rateable value of £5, in 21 
boroughs a rateable value of £4, and in 5 boroughs a rate¬ 
able value of less than £4, would be necessary in order to 
enfranchise those to whom the franchise would be given by a 
£7 rental. Moreover, owing to* the differences of rating 
which frequently prevailed in different parts of the 
same town, there would be inequalities in the operation of 
a rating franchise in the same borough. The ministry, how¬ 
ever, had tendered resignation of their offices not only be¬ 
cause of the effect of this motion but also because of the 
attitude of members during the previous divisions and de¬ 
bates. Patent to all had been the attempt to overweight 
the measure by an inclusion of bribery and corruption 
clauses, the attempt, without giving public notice, to post¬ 
pone the clauses of enfranchisement for the clauses af¬ 
fecting the redistribution of seats, the attempt to raise the 


187] DISRAELI’S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 ^7 

franchise when already the bill had been framed to con¬ 
ciliate those members who were timid or fastidious on the 
subject of Reform at the expense of those by whom Re¬ 
form was ardently supported. 1 

Earl Russell announced in the House of Lords that the 
resignations had been accepted. While taking occasion to 
give a history of the Reform movement during the last 
seven years, he justified the measure which had just been 
rejected as a fair and moderate one which had been opposed 
with a view of putting off Reform, 2 and attacked Lord 
Derby because of speeches made in condemnation of the 
measure. Lord Derby in reply criticized the hasty and 
inconsiderate conduct of the Government, and pointed out 
that the amendments from the ministerial side of the House 
had caused more trouble than any of his speeches. 

Lord Derby himself was destined to worry over Reform 
before the passing of many months. To him, as leader of 
the Conservatives, was given the task of forming an ad¬ 
ministration. 

Inasmuch as the Adullamites had been a party to the over¬ 
throw of the Russell-Gladstone ministry, it was but natural 
that their co-operation should be sought in the formation 
of a new ministry. Their terms, however, could not be 
accepted by the Conservatives; 3 and after an attempt to 
utilize Lord Shaftesbury, Palmerstonian, philanthropist, and 
friend of the working classes, had failed, Derby had to give 

speech of June 26, Hansard, vol. clxxxiv, pp. 684-692. 

t Cf. Annual Register, 1866, p. 159. 

3 Vide George Saintsbury, The Earl of Derby (New York, 1892), p. 170, 
where the statement is made that the Adullamites would have been will¬ 
ing to join a Government under Lord Stanley, son of Lord Derby. 
Stanley was known as a very liberal Conservative and had been offered 
office in 1855 by Palmerston. In the Life of Disraeli, vol. iv, pp. 439 
et seq., Monypenny and Buckle declare, however, that the Adullamites 
wanted the premiership to go to a Whig. 


jgg THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [ i gg 

up the idea of making a Government on an enlarged basis. 
He chose Disraeli as his foremost man. The latter, after 
several unsuccessful attempts to enter Parliament—on the 
first occasion as a Radical—finally had been elected in 1837 
under Tory auspices. Certain political ideas as expressed 
by pamphlets and by his novels Coningsby (1844) dealing 
with political conditions, and Sybil (1845) descriptive of 
the social relation between rich and poor, became the tenets 
of a considerable number of Tory followers. The passing 
of the Whig oligarchy in 1832 had made it possible, 
Disraeli believed, for the Crown and the old noble families 
to do something for the mass of the people, in which kind 
of activity the Liberals had been negligent. He had failed 
to follow Peel in the latter’s espousal of the repeal of the 
Corn Laws and had caused a split in the Conservative 
party. When he became, in a short time, leader of the Con¬ 
servatives in the House of Commons, he gave up, however, 
ideas of a sudden return to protectionist principles. He 
was successful as Chancellor of the Exchequer under Derby 
in 1852 and again in 1858 in the second Derby ministry. 
In the following year he tried to pass the Reform measure 
of 1859, but, as has been noted, failed. Brilliant, clever, 
and able, nevertheless as son of an apostate Jew he was 
looked at askance by British society. He now again be¬ 
came Chancellor of the Exchequer and as Derby’s assistant 
probably had much to do with the selection of men and 
the distribution of offices. Stanley 1 became Foreign Secre¬ 
tary, General Peel Secretary of War, Walpole 2 Secretary 
of State for the Home Department, Lord Cranborne 8 Secre- 

1 Stanley had been Colonial Secretary in 1858 and subsequently Presi¬ 
dent of the Board of Control. 

1 Walpole had occupied the same position in 1852 and 1858. 

•Later Lord Salisbury, leader of the Conservatives after Disraeli’s 
death; at this time he was an independent Conservative. 


189] DISRAELI'S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 x g 9 

tary for India, the Earl of Carnarvon 1 Colonial Secretary, 
and Sir Stafford Northcote and Gaithorne Hardy, 2 3 two men 
of talent in Disraeli’s opinion, President of the Board of 
Trade and President of the Poor Law Board respectively. 
According to an authority it was a strong combination with 
very few weak spots—“ a proof, in itself alone, of the suc¬ 
cess with which Disraeli had built up the Conservative 
party out of the ruins of the late ’forties, and had attracted 
to the service of the cause a goodly proportion of the intel¬ 
lect of the country.” ® 

As for Reform—a discussion of the subject was not re¬ 
newed in Parliament during the remainder of the session. 
Lord Derby, in his ministerial statement on accession to 
office, touched most guardedly on the subject. 4 He re¬ 
served to himself the most entire liberty as to whether the 
Government should or should not undertake to' bring in a 
measure for the amendment of the representation of the 
people but promised that if there was “ no reasonable pro¬ 
spect of passing a sound and satisfactory measure,” the 
session would not be spent in the wasteful contest over a Re¬ 
form bill. 5 

Disraeli, too, in his hustings speech on re-election de¬ 
clined to pledge himself to introduce a Reform bill in the 
following session. And he assured his constituents 

if we deal with the question at any time, we will deal with it 
in the spirit of the English Constitution. We shall not attempt 
to fashion or remodel the institutions of this country on any 

1 According to Monypenny and Buckle, Carnarvon was appointed 

through the influence of Derby. 

3 Hardy had defeated Gladstone at Oxford. 

* Monypenny and Buckle, Life of Disraeli, vol. iv, p. 445. Cf., also, 
^George Saintsbury, The Earl of Derby, p. I 7 °- 

* Cf. opinion of the Edinburgh Review, January, 1867, p. 287. 

* Hansard, vol. clxxxiv, p. 740. 


X 9 0 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [190 

foreign type whatever, whether they be American or whether 
they be French . . . we (who opposed the Liberal Reform 
bill) did not recognize that the rights of man should prevail 
in legislation, or that a numerical majority should dictate to 
an ancient nation of various political orders and classes. 1 

But of the qualifications of himself and of his friends to 
deal with Reform—of that he expressed himself in almost 
sanguine terms. 2 —Yet the royal speech at the prorogation 
of Parliament on the tenth of August did not touch the 
subject of “ the Representation of the People.” 

Would the Conservatives bring in a bill during the 1867 
session? That was a question asked and answered by al¬ 
most every newspaper and magazine in the country during 
the autumn and early winter of 1866. 3 Some of them 
thought that the people had spoken decisively in the Hyde 
Park episode; others began to realize the state of public 
mind only with the meetings held rather regularly in the 
northern towns. Before the opening of Parliament, how¬ 
ever, not only did the newspapers and the magazines agree 
as to the necessity for action but the pamphleteer concurred 
with their opinions: 

There is enough of anxiety to have the question settled; the 
timid fear prolonged agitation, and the man of business sees 
it hurts trade; the man of pleasure feels the subject a bore, and 
all grow weary of it. One party sees an opportunity to snatch 
advantages that may not soon occur again; and another fears, 
perhaps, that whatever bargain can be made now, there is: 
small hope of making better hereafter. 4 

lr The Times, July 14, 1866. 

3 Vide Edinburgh Review, January, 1867, p. 287. 

8 Cf. supra, chapter iii. 

4 William Rathbone, Soundings in Political Waters (Edinburgh, 1867L 
p. 30. 


I 9 l] DISRAELI'S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 I9I 

What did Disraeli and Derby think of the necessity for 
action ?—Strange as it may seem, it was Derby rather than 
Disraeli who first saw that there was a genuine call for Re¬ 
form. 1 It is true that Disraeli suggested on the twenty- 
ninth of July, shortly after the “famous Reform riot,” that 
a modified form of Gladstone's bill be rushed through Parlia¬ 
ment to stop agitation and “ dish ” Gladstone. When this 
su gg e stion was not accepted he seems to have been very slow 
to perceive the signs of the times. He was opposed to 
Derby's opinion expressed in writing on the sixteenth of 
September that the Conservatives would have to deal with 
Reform and might proceed by resolutions. He was impa¬ 
tient with the Queen, who, becoming anxious that the ques¬ 
tion be settled, wanted to urge Gladstone and Russell, by a 
personal appeal, to aid the ministers in finding terms of 
agreement. Even in November he wrote to Derby, giving 
as his opinion that any dealing with the Reform question 
should take place by resolutions “ which, though laying down 
a complete scheme, should end in a Royal Commission.” 
He must have realized that very little could be accomplished 
during the coming session by such a method O'f procedure. 
In a letter to Lord Cranborne, dated December 26, he 
wrote: 2 

I have throughout been against legislation, and continue so. 
Lord Derby, about the time you were here, thought it inevi¬ 
table, but, as you know, his views are now modified. 

It's a difficult affair, but I think we shall pull through; the 
Whigs are very unanimous in wishing the question “ settled ” 
—but you and I are not Whigs. 

Yet, as his biographer points out, his opinion gradually 

1 Documents for this statement quoted in Monypenny and Buckle, Life 
of Disraeli, vol. iv, pp. 453-454. The Queen even before Derby seems 
to have recognized the need of a real settlement. Ibid., p. 561. 

*Ibid., p. 463. 


192 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [ 192 

changed, for by mid-winter he permitted his Reform 
speeches to be published and on the third of January wrote 
to Derby saying that the Reform 1 question was paramount. 
By this time the ministers of the realm as well as the 
journalists and magazine writers may be said to have felt 
the pulse of the country. The financial crisis, the Hyde 
Park riot, the popular demonstrations in various parts of the 
country had contributed to produce a feeling of insecurity 
and distrust. Something must be done. 

Hence the royal speech on the opening of Parliament on 
February 5, 1867, expressed a desire for moderate dilibera¬ 
tions on the state of the representation of the people in 
Parliament. 1 In the comments on the speech Earl Russell, 
speaking for the Liberals in the House of Lords, promised! 
to consider upon its merits any bill which the Government 
should propose and said that he would rejoice to support one 
which should confer the franchise upon a large body of 
the artisans of the country who were well qualified to pos¬ 
sess it. Any delusive attempt to deal with the question he 
-denounced as only tending to foster agitation for manhood 
suffrage, which few members of either House of Parliament 
at present were disposed to support. In the House of Com¬ 
mons Gladstone said that the interests of the country de¬ 
manded a speedy settlement of the question; it was the duty 
of Parliament to accept an adequate measure. 

On the eleventh of February the Chancellor of the Ex¬ 
chequer in telling of the manner of proceeding declared that 
the question ought not to be an affair of party — that the 
House of Commons had incurred responsibility in the matter 
and that, therefore, in order to get the view of the House, 
proceeding should be by resolution. Procedure by resolu¬ 
tions, as has been mentioned, had been advised by Derby 
in September as well as at a somewhat later period. 2 

1 Annual Register, 1867, p. 4. 

* Vide Monypenny and Buckle, Life of Disraeli, chap. xiii. 


J 93 ] di SRAELI’S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 I9 3 

Disraeli also had thought this manner of preceeding very 
desirable. 1 The resolutions, ‘'however, as brought forth 
were so vague as to please no 1 one. Of the thirteen, the 
first stated that the number of electors for counties and 
boroughs ought to be increased; the second, that such in¬ 
crease might best be effected both by reducing the value of 
the qualifying tenement in counties and boroughs and 
by adding other franchises not dependent on such value; 
the third, that while it was desirable that a more direct 
representation should be given to> the laboring class, it 
was contrary to the Constitution of the realm to give to 
any one class or interest a predominating power over the 
rest of the community; the fourth, that the occupation fran¬ 
chise in counties and boroughs should be based upon the 
principle of rating; the fifth, that the principle of plurality of 
votes would facilitate the settlement of the borough fran¬ 
chise on an extensive basis; the sixth, that it was expedient 
to revise the existing distribution of seats. Such platitudes 
caused the press, in a body, to express disappointment. 2 
Members of the House, unable to curb their curiosity, 
questioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the ex¬ 
tent of change. In vain did they put their questions, for he 
refused to promise explanation of the proposed resolutions 
before the twenty-fifth of February. In fact, Disraeli had 
good reasons for refusing to give information. He him¬ 
self was not sure of the measure to be proposed. The 
cabinet was finding agreement almost impossible. 

The disagreement among the cabinet members, in fact, 
led to the application of the principles of the resolutions 
(February 25) in a scheme known as the Ten-Minutes bill. 
The explanation of the origin of the name given to this 
scheme and the circumstances making necessary its intro- 

1 Ibid., p. 459; resolutions had been of use in 1858 in the India bill. 

* Cf. Malmesbury, Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, vol. ii, p. 365. 


ig 4 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [ 194 

duction are as follows: 1 General Peel, Secretary of State 
for War, had announced on the sixteenth of February his 
inability 2 to sanction any reduction of the franchise and 
his intended resignation; later at the urging of his colleagues 
and the desire of the Queen he agreed to' conform to the 
general opinion. The cabinet then decided to bring in a 
bill with household suffrage as a basis but with personal pay¬ 
ment of rates and a residence qualification, etc., as checks. 
The discussion was settled agreeably at the cabinet meet¬ 
ing on Saturday, the twenty-third of February. “ The 
Cabinet unanimous for the great plan wrote Disraeli to 
his private secretary. He had promised to- explain the 
plans to' the House of Commons on Monday, the twenty- 
fifth. But on Sunday Lord Cranborne examined more 
closely the scheme, and concluded that its effect would be to 
throw the small boroughs almost entirely into the hands of 
voters of less than the £10 qualification. Such proceeding 
he did not think to be for the interest of the country. Car¬ 
narvon, Colonial Secretary, agreed with him. Hence on 
Monday morning, Disraeli and Derby had threats of the 
resignation of two of their colleagues. The cabinet, hastily 
summoned, could not be brought together much before half- 
past one, and by the time the situation was explained, it was 
after two. At two-thirty 3 Derby had to address the party; 
at four-thirty Disraeli was to address the House. Literally, 
the cabinet did not have “ more than ten minutes in which 
to make up their minds ” on their course. 4 They determined, 

x The Beaconsfield papers, the addresses of Lord Derby to the House 
of Lords and of Sir John Pakington to his constituents in his reelection 
speech and various memoirs, give data. 

2 For a full account in the Beaconsfield papers, vide Monypenny and 
Buckle, vol. iv, pp. 495 et seq. 

“Pakington says at two o’clock. 

4 The speech of Pakington is given in the Times, March 14, 1867. 


195] DISRAELI'S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 ^ 

in that brief time, to take up a milder scheme which had 
previously been drawn up in an attempt to please Peel. 1 
This was the scheme Disraeli with no enthusiasm explained] 
on the twenty-fifth. 

Rising in a House crowded with many distinguished 
strangers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the first 
place, took occasion to point out that since 1832 the middle 
class had governed the country, but that it now seemed pro¬ 
per that the working class should be granted some of the rights/ 
they desired. He then proceeded to an explanation of the 
proposed resolutions: there were to be some new or fancy 
franchises—those in boroughs, who could meet a certain 
educational requirement, about 10,000 in number, those who 
were depositors in savings banks, about 35,000, those who 
had £50 in public funds, about 7,000, and those who paid) 
20 in direct taxes, about 30,000, were to have a vote. 
The principle of plurality (L e., the principle that a person 
who had a right to vote for a member of Parliament should 
vote in addition under any one new franchise which he might 
possess), however, would not be insisted upon. A £6 rating 
in the boroughs, as the occupiers’ qualification, would give 
130,000 voters and a £20 rating in the counties together with 
the fancy franchises would add 187,500 county voters. Ini 
all there would be an addition of some 400,000 voters. 53 
There was to be a slight redistribution of seats. If the 
House liked the resolutions, as interpreted in this scheme 
(the Ten-Minutes “bill”), a moderate bill based on them 
would be brought in. 

The House immediately showed th^t it did not like the 
resolutions. Lowe of the Adullamites asked the Govern¬ 
ment to do away with such ambiguous and abstract resolu- 

1 Vide Monypenny and Buckle, vol. iv, p. 500. 

*By the bill of 1866, the total number of new voters would have 
been 400,000. 


ig6 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [196 

tions and bring in a bill. He intimated that they were now 
playing to keep in office, that they were willing for the House 
to “ say what you like to us, only, for God’s sake leave us 
our places.” But “ why are they to have the mark of 
Cain set upon them, that nobody may kill them?” Mr. 
Bright said that discussion of the resolutions would be a 
mere waste of time. He asked for and in fact promised 
to support a measure which should be big enough to 1 do away 
with agitation during his life. Mr. Laing of the Adullam- 
ites thought that the scheme did not have finality. He would 
prefer household suffrage. Even friends of the Govern¬ 
ment were not favorably inclined. 1 Further consideration 
of the resolutions was put off until the twenty-eighth of 
February. 

In the meantime, two hundred and eighty-nine of the 
Liberals met at Gladstone’s house on the twenty-sixth and 
resolved to support an amendment urging the Government 
to bring in a bill. 2 But Disraeli was ahead of them. Real¬ 
izing that his proposals were not pleasing to those who 
wanted no Reform and that they were too moderate for 
those who did want Ref orm, the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
determined not to go on with the resolutions. Hence at 
the meeting of the House that evening he announced the 
Government’s intention of bringing in a bill. He explained 
that the chief object of the resolutions had been accom¬ 
plished in that the proposals had been given a fair and candid 
consideration. 

Disraeli could not at once bring in a bill. He had first to' 
consider whether he should adhere to the Ten-Minutes 
“ bill ” and keep a cabinet intact or whether he should bring 
in a bill based on household suffrage— i, e. } the scheme 

1 Cf. the ministerial explanation of Lord Derby in the House of Lords, 
Hansard, vol. clxxxv, pp. 1284-1289. 

2 Annual Register, 1867, p. 29, and News of the World, March 3, 1867. 


197] DISRAELI'S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 jgy 

originally settled upon, the twenty-third of February—and 
lose Cranborne, Carnarvon and Peel. Which plan would! 
his own party favor; what attitude would the Radicals take; 
how would the Liberals manoeuver; with what action would 
the country be pleased?—these were some of the questions 
over which Disraeli had to ponder. 

That a number of his own party stood for the bolder 
course, Disraeli soon became aware. Henley, one of the 
Conservative leaders, 1 had declared in favor of household 
suffrage in 1859, 2 and would' support such a plan. Mem¬ 
bers * of the Carlton Club 4 gave their support to the move¬ 
ment. A feeling that the party should settle the question, 
was growing rapidly among the Tories, Monypenny and 
Buckle declare, 5 as was also the feeling that “ a generous 
extension to a new and respectable class, the rate-paying 
householders, might well inure to- the benefit of a party 
which claimed to be national, and dethrone one which was 
still largely oligarchical.” 6 And when, three days before 
the bill was to be brought in, the more liberal plan was ex¬ 
plained at a meeting at Derby’s almost all of the 195 present 
approved. That the Radicals could be counted on for 
the greater change was also well known to Disraeli. Bright 
had promised, in the open, to accept the bill which would 

1 Henley was not, however, a minister. For his attitude toward the 
suffrage question, vide Roundell Palmer, 1st Earl of Selborne, Me¬ 
morials, 4 vols. (London, 1896-1898), vol. i, pt. ii, p. 64. 

2 Hansard, vol. clii, pp. 1064 et seq., and vol. cliii, p. 1217. 

3 I. e., a majority. 

4 The leading Conservative political club of London, founded in 1832 
by the Duke of Wellington. 

5 Vol. iv, p. 508; the Times, March 11, 1867, expresses a similar opinion 
in an editorial. 

• But Stanley declared in the ministerial explanations of the fifth of 
March that he could conceive no circumstances which would cause the 
Government to “reduce the franchise to an almost unlimited extent.” 
Hansard , vol. clxxxv, p. 1364. 


198 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [198 

settle the question for a given period, and promised, in 
private, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do all he 
could fairly to help a bill through if the right thing were 
done. 1 Gladstone recognized that Bright would help the 
Conservatives if they gave him his demands. Writing from 
Rome to Brand in October, 1866, he said: “ We have no 
claim upon him (Bright), more than the government have 
on us; and I imagine he will part company the moment he 
sees his way to> more than we would give him.” 2 That 
Gladstone would go further than the Ten-Minutes “ bill ” 
and hence get the country back of him had to be taken into 
consideration by the Conservative leaders. Writing con¬ 
fidentially to Lord Derby on the twenty-sixth of February, 
Disraeli said: 

I dined alone with Walpole, who thinks that our fall now is 
only an affair of a little time, assuming that, in our present 
feeble position, all the sections will reunite for a vote against 
which it would be absurd to appeal to the country. That, he 
thinks, is Gladstone’s tactic: to play with us until we are 
contemptible. As Sir Lawrence Palk says, “ Till he comes in 
with household suffrage, which is getting riper every minute.” 3 

Writing to Lord Derby on the twenty-seventh he expressed 
the opinion that Gladstone would go slowly but by the time 
the bill was in committee would be “ prepared to try five 
against six ” and would probably succeed in passing an 
amendment calling for such a substitution. 4 That the 
country would be much better pleased with a larger bill, 
Disraeli knew from the Reform meetings. And when the 
larger bill was brought in, the Reform meeting at Birming- 

1 Trevelyan, Life of Bright, pp. 370 and 371. 

2 Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. ii, p. 223. 

8 Monypenny and Buckle, vol. iv, p. 504. 

i Ibid., p. 506. 


199] DISRAELI'S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 jgg 

ham on March 22 accepted “ with great satisfaction the 
recognition of household suffrage as the basis of the fran¬ 
chise in the boroughs,” although, of course, opinion was 
against the checks. 1 That even a number of the Adullamites 
thought household suffrage a good basis was made known 
to Disraeli. 2 Hence influenced by various considerations, 
he determined to take the bolder course. The cabinet de¬ 
cided to revert to the plan of the twenty-third of February. 
On the fourth of March it became known that Cranborne, 
Carnarvon, and Peel had resigned. Lord Derby expressed 
to the House of Lords the regret he felt at parting with three 
of his most important and most valued colleagues but pro¬ 
mised to put before Parliament in a very short time the 
measure which the majority of the cabinet had in the first in¬ 
stance considered the more desirable. Lord Carnarvon 
explained his resignation by declaring that he was unable to 
sanction the innovations contemplated by the Government. 
On the following day, Peel and Cranborne gave their reasons 
for withdrawing. Lord Cranborne imparted the following 
information to the House of Commons: on the sixteenth of 
February he first heard of the more nearly radical pro¬ 
position. He stated at once that the proposition was inad¬ 
missible and thought that it had been abandoned. But on 
the nineteenth the proposition was revived with the state¬ 
ment of certain statistics, not at that time complete. When 
he had time to investigate the complete figures carefully, 
after the cabinet meeting on the twenty-third, he concluded 
that though the figures stated in block, had had fair seem¬ 
ing, when looked at in actual working they would operate 
in a very large number of boroughs by giving practically 
household suffrage. 3 

'The Times, March 23, 1867. 

*C/. Monypenny and Buckle, Life of Disraeli, vol. iv, p. 508. 

3 Hansard, vol. clxxxv, pp. 1348-1349. 


200 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[200 

Whether or not the ministry was actually to blame for 
the vacillations of the last few weeks, due, as it is sometimes 
stated, 1 to a lack of consideration and study upon the bill 
introduced, it caused the country and the House of Commons 
to become impatient at its irresolution. “ The Conserva¬ 
tive leaders were in the position of a stage manager who, 
when the audience are assembled and the time for raising the 
curtain had arrived, has not resolved what piece he will put 
upon the stage.’’ 2 With a ministry in which Cranborne had. 
been succeeded by Northcote, Peel by Pakington, and 
Carnarvon by the Duke of Buckingham, 3 Disraeli pro¬ 
ceeded to bring in the original scheme. 

On the eighteenth of March, this Reform bill was ex¬ 
plained to a crowded House. 4 The Chancellor of the Ex¬ 
chequer first stated the Government’s object, namely, to 
strengthen the character and functions of that House, and 
to establish them on a broad and popular basis. But popular 
privileges and democratic rights were not identical. Nay, 
they were contradictory; he hoped' that it would never be the 
fate of this country to live under a democracy, and this bill 
had no tendency in that direction. This bill followed out 
the plan of Lord Dunkellin’s motion of last year, in that 
rating was made the basis of valuation. Every householder 
paying his own rates and meeting a two-years residence 
qualification should be admitted to vote. This provision 
would admit 237,000 men living in houses under £10. 5 

l Vide Homersham Cox, A History of the Reform Bills of 1866 and 
1867 (London, 1868), p. 104. 

* Ibid . 

3 He had been Lord President, probably through the influence of 
Disraeli, whose friend he was. 

*Vide Annual Register, 1867, pp. 40 et seq. 

5 Cox, pp. 108 et seq., shows that Disraeli’s figures are too high. He 
concludes that the net number of electors will be fifty per cent less than 
the gross number of rated occupiers. 


201 


201 ] DISRAELI'S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 

Every facility would be given to- have the 486,000 unenfran¬ 
chised householders 1 not paying their own rates (f. e. } com¬ 
pound householders), make payment of their own rates, 
that the right of voting might be obtained. The bill would 
confer the franchise on payers of 20 direct taxes. House¬ 
holders in towns paying this tax would have the dual vote 
and such a right would add more than 200,000. It also 
would contain an education franchise which would admit 
35,000, and would give votes to the extent of 70,000 to 
holders of savings banks’ deposits and funded property of 
£50. In all more than 1,000,000 would be added to the 
borough constituency. In the counties a £15 rating would 
take the place of the £50 rental. By this reduction 171,000 
would be added to county constituencies and the lateral fran¬ 
chises would bring the total to more than 300,000. Cumula¬ 
tive voting and three-cornered constituencies did not meet 
with the favor of the Government. According to the redis¬ 
tribution scheme, thirty s(eats would be affected. New 
boroughs would be given fourteen, counties would be given 
fifteen, the London- University would be given one. 

As soon as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had finished 
explaining his bill, Gladstone rose and in one of his most 
brilliant speeches attacked the scheme. He objected to the 
estimates of the Government, declaring that only 140,000 
would be admitted by extending the franchise ;to all who per¬ 
sonally paid their rates. Rating would leave the franchise at 
the direction of the vestry; the practise with regard to 
compounders varied in almost every parish, hence many 
anomalies would arise. Moreover, a principle had been set 
up only to be knocked down again by the use of checks. 
Additions to the bill would have to be introduced—a lodger 

1 Cox, A History of the Reform Bills, p. 113, complains that this is not 
done in the original bill. Studying the statistics carefully he comes to 
the conclusion that the original bill of 1867 would have added a smaller 
number of voters in the boroughs than the franchise bill of 1866. 


202 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[202 

franchise, for instance, was needed. Some of the Conser¬ 
vatives, too, showed opposition. Mr. Beresford Hope 
spoke on the Conservatives outbidding Liberals in a Liberal 
market. Lord Cranborne declared that they soon would have 
household suffrage, for ;the checks must go. To this state¬ 
ment Disraeli replied that the Government would never in¬ 
troduce household suffrage pure and simple. Leave was 
then given to bring in the bill and the second reading moved 
for the twenty-fifth of March. Before that date, a meeting 
of the Liberals was held at Gladstone’s house (March 21) 
to consider their course toward the bill. Although Glad¬ 
stone himself was opposed 1 to the second reading he did 
not think that the general disposition of the meeting would 
bear him out in his opposition. 2 But if the ministers would 
not abandon the dual voting' and equalise the privileges and 
facilities of the enfranchised in all cases, however the quali¬ 
fication arose, then the measure, he thought, should not be 
permitted to go into committee. Bright took about the 
same attitude as Gladstone. 

The debate on the second reading of the bill lasted two 
nights. Gladstone opened the discussion. Many altera¬ 
tions 3 were needed on this bill: 4 a lodger franchise must be 
inserted; means to stop traffic in votes must be found; dis¬ 
tinction between different classes of ratepaying householders 
must be abolished; 5 the taxpaying franchise and dual vote 

1 Vide Blackwood's, May, 1867, p. 643. 

* Cf. Cox, A History of the Reform Bills, p. 133. 

z Cf. Cox, p. 134, who says these alterations were actually made 
through Gladstone. 

1 Hansard, vol. clxxxvi, pp. 472-504. 

5 Gladstone’s exact words are: “ It seems to me we must do away 
with the vexatious distinctions that now exist between compound house¬ 
holders in a condition of life and society that are recognized by law as 
fitting them for the franchise, and those persons of the very same con¬ 
dition not being compound householders.” 


203] DISRAELI'S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 2Q 3 

must be abandoned; the redistribution part must be enlarged, 
the county franchise reduced and voting papers 1 dropped. 
For himself he was sorry that the £6 rating had been given 
up and thought a definite line in rating desirable. Hardy 
attempted to answer Gladstone. The Government believed 
in mutual concession and forbearance, but if, as Mr. Glad¬ 
stone had said, every leading provision of the bill required 
revision, then the division ought to take place at this stage. 2 3 
After combating the arguments of the Opposition leader, 
he repeated that the Government declined to accept Mr. 
Gladstone’s dictum. They wished for discussion and would 
not show themselves unreasonable, if met in a reasonable 
spirit. They did intend, however, to stand by the main 
principle of accompanying a free enfranchisement by judi¬ 
cious limitations. 

Mr. Bright, like Mr. Gladstone, found much to criticise 
in the bill. It had the marks upon it of being the product, 
not of the friends, but of the enemies of Reform It gave 
nothing to the workingmen, for to the few enfranchised 
there was the set-off of a vote to 200,000 of a higher class. 
Hence the dissatisfaction throughout the country would not 
cease. For himself, he would give the warmest support to 
a fair and honest measure, but it was impossible to assist a 
Government which would not tell frankly what it intended, 
what it stood by, what it would get rid of. 

To Gladstone and Bright the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
replied in one of his noteworthy speeches. 9 The tone and 
manner of Mr. Gladstone had not been pleasing but the 
Government was willing to make many changes in the bill. 
They had never had the idea that much consideration would 
not be required in committee. They would have to con- 

1 Clause 29 dealt with voting papers. 

5 Hansard , vol. clxxxvi, pp. 506-507. 

3 Hansard, vol. clxxxvi, pp. 642-664. 


204 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[204 

sider, as Mr. Gladstone had suggested, the lodger franchise. 
He declared himself to be the father of this suffrage, and 
thought that the House would adopt it if satisfactory argu¬ 
ments should be urged in its favo<r in committee. Mr. Glad¬ 
stone, last year, however, had thought its effect would not be 
great, and the other objections, he promised, would also re¬ 
ceive consideration in committee. He defended the prim 
oiple of personal rating as against the £5 rating—the rigid 
line for which Gladstone was contending. The Government 
was laying down a principle, and had not cared so much 
about the numbers to* be admitted. The dual vote which 
Mr. Bright had opposed so warmly would not be insisted 
upon. He again asked the co-operation of the House in pas¬ 
sing a bill; the ministry was convinced that their duty was 
not to* desert their posts until this question had been settled; 
and he entreated the House: 

Act with us cordially and candidly, assist us to carry this 
measure. We will not shrink from deferring to your sugges¬ 
tions so long as they are consistent with the main object of 
this Bill which we have never concealed from you, and which 
is to preserve the representative character of the House of 
Commons. Act with us, I say, cordially and candidly, you 
will find on our side complete reciprocity of feeling. Pass the 
Bill, and then change the Ministry if you like. 

This “reasonable and attractive appeal” is to Mony- 
penny and Buckle a turning point of the session: “ it prac¬ 
tically secured the carrying of a Reform bill under the con¬ 
duct of the Government.” 1 

To> the Annual Register his speech gave the impression 
that the Government would yield to pressure and would! 
discard obnoxious and impracticable provisions, thus taking 

1 Vide Monypenny and Buckle, vol. iv, pp. 526 and 527, where is given 
additional material upon the effect of this important speech. 


205] DISRAELI'S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 2C>5 

a course which would lead “ to the ultimate acceptance of 
the measure.” 1 

From this time it was felt that the probabilities of a settle¬ 
ment of the question before the termination of the Session 
were much increased; the only material doubt that remained 
depending on the power of the leader of the Conservative 
party in the House of Commons to carry his supporters along 
with him in that course of concession for which it was quite 
evident that he was individually prepared. 2 3 

The Spectator, too, was influenced by the speech and sug¬ 
gested that Disraeli really felt that the country needed a 
bill, and, having passed it, would resign.® Lord Derby 
was much pleased with the success of Disraeli and 
wrote to him to that effect. 4 Now, for the first time, he 
announced to the Queen a sanguine hope of carrying a bill 
through in the course of the present session. The House of 
Commons, for its part, passed the second reading without 
a division. 

Before the House went into Committee on the eighth of 
April disagreement in the Liberal party had tended to 1 streng¬ 
then the position of the Conservatives. Gladstone tried to 
strike at the bill through the compound householder. A 
large proportion of occupiers under f io, not paying their 
own rates, but giving their proportion to the landlord who 
paid the assessment for all the occupiers, would be ex¬ 
cluded, according to the terms of the bill, from the franchise. 
If they did choose to pay the rates directly, their assessment 
would need to be larger since they or the landlord would have 
to make up a discount formerly received by him for pay- 

1 Annual Register, p. 53. 

'Ibid. 

3 The Spectator, March 30, 1867. 

4 Monypenny and Buckle, Life of Disraeli, vol. iv, p. 527. 


206 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [206 

ing his tenants’ rates in a lump ; the increased assessment 
was referred to by certain members as a fine placed upon the 
working class. 1 Gladstone, making this point the issue with 
the Government, called together a meeting of the Liberals 
at his house on the fifth of April. There were present 259 
members of the House of Commons. He proposed an 
amendment which the party agreed to: 

That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have 
power to alter the law of rating; and to provide that in every 
Parliamentary borough the occupiers of tenements below a 
given ratable value be relieved from liability to personal rat¬ 
ing, with a view to fix a line for the borough franchise, at and 
above which all occupiers shall be entered on the rate-book, 
and shall have equal facilities for the enjoyment of such fran¬ 
chise as a residential occupation franchise. 2 

Gladstone wished in fact to substitute a £5 rating fran¬ 
chise for the borough franchise of the Government but 
neither the public nor the radical element in the Liberal 
party agreed with him. 3 The Times saw the strange sight 
of “ an attempt made by the Liberal party to repress the en¬ 
franchising zeal of a Conservative Administration.” 4 The! 
London Working Men’s Association at its (adjourned) an¬ 
nual meeting expressed its strong opposition to the drawing 
of any arbitrary line of rating—whether £5 or any other sum 
—below which householders should not be admitted to the 
franchise, and suggested that Gladstone devote his energies 
to obtaining a reduction in the residential term of qualifica¬ 
tion, and the insertion of a lodger franchise. 5 The dis~ 

^ox, A History of the Reform Bills of 1866 and 1867, pp. 113-116. 

a Annual Register , 1867, p. 55. 

l Vide the Times , April 6, 1867. 

4 Ibid . 

6 The Times, April 17, 1867. 


207 ] DISRAELI'S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 20 y 

satisfied Liberals held a meeting in the Tea-room of the 
House of Commons and resolved not to support the amend¬ 
ment, and hence the motion had to be withdrawn. 1 In Sir 
Robert Phillimore’s Journal under the date of April 9 is 
found the following summary of the situation: 2 “ Entire 
collapse of Gladstone’s attack on government yesterday. 
Tea-room schism of Liberal members, including the House 
of Commons Russell. Disraeli’s insolent triumph.” This 
first breakdown of the Opposition party was justly regarded 
by the Annual Register “ as symptomatic of the disunion 
which would render their efforts to* dictate the terms of the 
bill unavailing.’ 7 Certain it is that the troubles of the 
Liberal leaders contributed not a little to give strength and 
confidence to the ministers. 3 

After considerable debating by various members upon the 
bill itself and the actions of the Government, the House 
went into committee. And now, once again, Gladstone de¬ 
termined to test the strength of his opponents and pro¬ 
posed an amendment to the effect that the direct and personal 
payment of rates by the householder should not be essential 
for obtaining the franchise. But the provision was to 
apply only to those whose premises were of the yearly value 
of £5.* Gladstone himself defended his position by saying 
fhat the rates of two^thirds of the houses under £10 value 
were compounded for, therefore the working class would 
still be without the vote and hence would continue to agitate, 
and that too great expenditures of money and of time would 
baffle any attempts made by them to pay their own rates. 
But the motion, standing as iit did “ for a hard and fast line,” 

1 Annuls of Our Time, April 8. There were forty or fifty Liberal 
members who dissented from Gladstone’s policy. 

* Quoted from Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. ii, p. 232. 

5 Annual Register, 1867, p. 56. 

4 Cf. Annals of Our Time, April 11, 1867. 


208 the ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [208 

was regarded as being reactionary. Lord 1 Cranborne, for 
instance, the Conservative who had withdrawn from! a too 
liberal Conservative cabinet, announced that he would sup¬ 
port Gladstone. Many of the Liberals, however, refused 
to follow their leader and when the divisionj was taken, the 
Government was found to have triumphed by 310 to' 289. 
“ The supporters of the Government were found upon the 
Opposition benches; their opponents sat beside and behind 
them.” 1 The Government was well pleased with the result; 
the country gentlemen rushed forward to shake hands with 
the leader who 1 was said to have betrayed them ; “ Dizzy ” 
proudly went home to his wife. 2 Gladstone was so dis¬ 
couraged by this “ smash ” that it was rumored that he would 
give up the leadership of the Opposition. 

But when the House came together after Easter, Glad¬ 
stone still remained “ at the service of his party.” He was 
backed, too, by Bright w1k>, speaking at Birmingham during 
the vacation, had declared that the bill had fallen into’ the 
hands of enemies by the defeat of the amendment and that 
the Tories were using the measure for Tory purposes. 3 Yet 
Gladstone announced that for the present he would not lead 
in amending. 

After the House had resumed its discussions of the bill in 
committee on May 2, one 4 of the Radicals proposed a 
twelve-months instead of the (two-years residence require¬ 
ment. Sir John Pakington, for the Government, said that the 
amendment could not be adopted. If two years is a proper 
time, why not apply it to a £10 householder, came the ques¬ 
tion, and on the division the Government lost by a majority 

1 The Times, April 13, 1867. Bright spoke and voted with Gladstone. 

S T. E. Kebbel, Lord Beaconsdeld and Other Tory Memories (New 
York, 1907), pp. 39 and 40. 

8 The Times, April 23, 1867. 

4 Mr. Ayrton. 


209 ] DISRAELI'S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 2Q g 

of eighty-one. “ They promptly put in practice the readiness 
to defer to the opinion of the House which they had re¬ 
peatedly announced.” 1 In fact, as Malmesbury wrote, 2 * the 
laissez-aller system was being followed by the Government. 
They were trying to* make the best they could of the situa¬ 
tion, but were constantly yielding something. In this par¬ 
ticular case, moreover, Disraeli may have been influenced by 
the attitude of the workingmen. At least one deputation s 
had told himi that the bill was good except for the residence 
provision. And furthermore, in order to pass a bill, 4 the 
great Conservative leader would be willing to stretch such 
a point as this. 

Next it was moved to procure the enfranchisement of 
lodgers. The amendment, however, was withdrawn when 
the Government promised to embody the lodger franchise 
in their bill: lodgings of a clear yearly value, if let un¬ 
furnished, of £io or upwards plus one year residence be¬ 
came the basis of the qualification. 

Then came up again the question of the “ compound 
householder.” Mr. Hibbert, a Liberal, thought that house¬ 
holders under £io should come in on the same tennis as the 
compound householders at and above that amount, namely, 
by simply paying the amount of composition and not the 
full rate, and moved an amendment to that effect. Glad¬ 
stone, Bright, John Staurt Mill, all spoke for this plan and 
against Disraeli’s proposal that “ a compound occupier claim¬ 
ing to be registered as a voter should be rated as an ordinary 
occupier” (i. e. y should pay the full rate). 5 Disraeli in the 

1 Monypenny and Buckle, vol. iv, p. 537. 

* Malmesbury, Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, vol. ii, pp. 3 ^ 9 - 37 °* 

l Vide the Times, May 1, 1867. 

4 Cf. comments in Monypenny and Buckle, vol. iv, p. 536, on Stanley’s 
note to Disraeli. 

5 C/. Cox, A History of the Reform Bills, p. 178. 


2io THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [210 

test was able to defeat Hibbert’s amendment by a vote of 
256 to 322. 1 

But at this point the Chancellor of the Exchequer did the 
surprising thing. Mr. Hodgkinson, a Liberal, had moved 
to abolish composition altogether. All those rated for the 
poor would be given the franchise. In his opposition to 
the Government, Gladstone defended the motion. If the 
Reform question was to be settled, if the agitation was to 
be stopped, such a course must be taken. And then Disraeli 
spoke! The amendment would really carry out the prin¬ 
ciple of the bill; the Government having had intentions of 
using a similar clause earlier had struck it out lest they en¬ 
cumber the ship so 1 much as to- imperil the voyage. There¬ 
fore, he would offer no' opposition to the provision, and 
if the amendment were withdrawn he would undertake to 
carry out its object. There was a sensation in the House. 
Gladstone, who had anticipated the defeat of the motion 
by a majority of a hundred, wrote long afterwards: 

Never have I undergone a stranger emotion of surprise than 
when, as I was entering the House, our whip met me and 
stated that Disraeli was about to support Hodgkinsons motion. 
But so it was, and the proposition was adopted without dis¬ 
turbance, as if it had been an affair of trivial importance. 2 

Bright, we are told, 3 “ noted the victory of his cause very 
quietly:—‘ Government accepted our demands on Borough 
Franchise.’ ” Others of the Radicals showed their great 
joy at the turn events had taken. Mr. Forster, for instance, 
was found dancing down the lobby. 4 In the House he 

^Consult Cox, pp. 179 and 180, on Disraeli’s tactics. 

3 Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. ii, pp. 225 and 226. 

3 Trevelyan, Life of John Bright, p. 377. 

4 All this happened on the seventeenth of May. 


211 


21 1 ] DISRAELI’S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 

observed that there was a hope of settling the borough fran¬ 
chise in a way that would be satisfactory to the country. 
The conservative wing of the Liberals was very bitter. Mr. 
Lowe was able to give his usual tirade against the ignorance 
and what not of the commonalty; the restrictions had now 
been swept away; the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not 
shown his supporters his whole plan at once, for they would 
have been frightened at it. Among the Conservatives there 
was much surprise. Disraeli had made his decision with¬ 
out the advice even of his chief counselor, Gathorne Hardy, 
and in a letter to him explains that he had taken his position 
because 1 * the public mind was ready for the change, because 
the Liberals had started the move and would have been able 
to make a coup / because, without receding from his posi¬ 
tion and principle of a rating and residential franchise, he 
had taken a step “ which would destroy the present agita¬ 
tion and extinguish Gladstone and Company.” Hardy sup¬ 
ported his chief. Later he wrote: “ We had so far stepped 
in that we could not, on such a point, draw back, but it was 
a new proof that a great measure ought not to be in the 
hand of a minority, but with those who can mould and re¬ 
sist the moulding of others.” 3 In the House, Mr. Henley, 
of the Conservatives, backed up the Government: he con¬ 
sidered this proposal the most conservative that could be 
made, considering how often the question had been mooted 
in the House, and how much agitation had been going on out 
of doors. Lord Cran borne, on the other hand, was opposed 
to such startling changes. 

And by accepting the amendment Disraeli so materially 

1 Vide letter to Hardy in Monypenny and Buckle, vol. iv, pp. 540-541. 

f Contrast what Gladstone and Disraeli have to say on this point: 
Gladstone expected the amendment to fail; Disraeli says that it would 
have carried. 

3 Gathorne Hardy, A Memoir, 2 vols. (London, 1910), vol. i, pp. 208-210. 


212 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[212 

altered the character of the bill that for all practical purposes 
it became a new measure. 1 All occupiers of tenements, not 
disqualified by the receipt of parochial relief, change of re¬ 
sidence and certain other conditions which affected all clas¬ 
ses of electors, were placed upon the electoral lists. Cox 
estimated that over 300,000 borough voters were added as 
the effect of Mr. Hodgkinson’s amendment. 2 The original 
bill added over 100,000 voters; so that excluding lodgers, 
there would be a total increase of over 400,000. “ It thus 

appears that the effect of the momentous amendment was 
to extend the franchise almost four times as much as was 
originally contemplated ” Inasmuch as there were less 
than 500,000 borough electors according to the electoral re¬ 
turns of 1865-1866, it fellows that the effect of the amend¬ 
ment was nearly to double the borough constituency. 
The large addition in the number of voters of the working 
class put England well on the way to democracy. 

The question of the county franchise had then to be 
taken up. By the original clause the occupation franchise 
had been fixed at a £15 rateable value. Locke King, a 
Liberal, wished to substitute a £10 rating and when Dis¬ 
raeli showed a willingness to compromise on the £12 line, 
Gladstone recommtended the withdrawal of King’s motion. 3 

The clauses on “ the fancy franchises ” were soon dealt 
with. One of the members pointed out that since they had 

1 Cox, History of the Reform Bills, pp. 201 et seq. 

5 The statistics of Disraeli and Cox, it will be noted, are by no means 
identical; the borough voters numbered 488,920 in 1865 (Accounts and 
Papers, 1866, [3626] lvii, 215); 1,210,001 in 1868 (Accounts and Papers, 
1877, [432] lxviii, 318). 

3 After much discussion it was agreed that a man might be a voter 
for a county, who had an estate in copyhold, or any other tenure, for 
his life, of the clear yearly value of £5, or was the holder of a lease, for 
not less than sixty years originally, of lands or tenements of the clear 
yearly value of £5. 


213] DISRAELI’S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 21 3 

got rid of the dual vote, had established a lodger franchise, 
and had based the borough franchise on household suffrage, 
these fancy franchises were entirely unnecessary. 1 Hence 
the educational franchise, now supported by Mr. Fawcett 
alone, was given up, the clause giving the franchise to< those 
who had certain sums in the savings banks or in the public 
funds, was struck out after a slight protest from Disraeli, 
and the dual vote was done away with. That part of the 
Reform question which related to the franchise and which 
had caused trouble for so many ministries had finally been 
completed. 

Redistribution now became the subject of discussion. 
Mr. Laing brought forth a scheme much more extensive 
than that proposed by the Government. 'A population of 
10,000 rather than of 7,000 as the Government had fixed it, 
was to be the minimum for returning two members by any 
borough. He also further proposed the grouping of some 
of the smaller boroughs. A small addition should be made 
to the members in the House in order to give Scotland the 
number of representatives it deserved. 2 Six towns with a 
population of 150,000 each, should have their representa¬ 
tives increased from two to three, and four towns with a 
population exceeding 50,000 which now had one member, 
should have two members. Although Disraeli spoke against 
the proposal, 3 so many of the Conservatives were for it, 
when Laing gave way on the point of grouping, that it was 
carried in the test. And after the Whitsuntide recess, the 
Chancellor of the Exchequer on the thirteenth of June, gave 
announcement of the propositions which the Government 
had to make. Every borough with a population less than 

1 Sir R. Palmer, Hansard , vol. clxxxvii, p. 1236. 

*Mr. Laing represented Wick Burghs, Scotland. 

3 Vide Monypenny and Buckle, vol. iv, p. 544, for evidence that Disraeli 
really wanted this measure passed, although he spoke against it. 


214 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[214 


10,000 which returned two members, should now return one. 
This action together with the disfranchisemient of several 
corrupt boroughs would give 45 seats for ^appropriation* 
Of these, nineteen were to' be given to boroughs, one to the 
University of London and twenty-five to counties. Mr. 
Laing was disappointed that additional representation had 
not been given to six or seven large towns and took occasion 
to move that additional members be given to them. Mr. 
Gladstone and Mr. Baines stood for the amendment. 
Disraeli strongly opposed it. On the division it was re¬ 
jected by 247 to 239. Later, however, the committee did 
grant a third member to Birmingham, Manchester, Liver¬ 
pool, and Leeds, and consequently the number of new 
boroughs was correspondingly limited. 1 

Other amendments dealing with various topics were pre¬ 
sented at different times. A motion “ of rather singular 
character ” made by John Stuart Mill, was a proposal to 
enable women to vote. Mill, declaring that taxation and re¬ 
presentation should co-exist, first placed this question 
seriously before Parliament, but many of his colleagues gave 
a jocular character to the discussion. 2 On the test the 
motion was negatived 196 to 73, and although the subject 
was brought up often after 1870 it was not favorably acted 
upon in the nineteenth century. 

A clause of the bill authorizing the use of voting papers 
in lieu of personal voting at the polls was attacked especially 
by some of the Liberals. The ballot, demanded by the 
Radicals in 1832 and by the Chartists, was still regarded 
with hostile eyes by the majority of the official class. The 

1 Thomas Chisholm Anstey, Notes upo.n the Representation of the 
People Act, 1867 (London, 1867), conveniently gives the schedules, the 
Act of 1867 together with the original bill, and many returns relating 
to the franchise and redistribution. 

2 Annual Register, 1867, p. 72. 


21 DISRAELI'S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 215 

Reform League did not have influence enough to change that 
majority into a minority. Disraeli himself spoke for the 
clause but admitted that “ there was much to be said on 
both sides.” The clause was discarded and when the House 
of Lords added to the bill a motion that “ any voter for a 
county or borough may, in compliance with the provisions 
hereinafter contained, give his vote by a voting paper in¬ 
stead of personally,” the addition was rejected by the Com¬ 
mons. 1 

Representation of minorities was another subject on 
which proposals were made. Mr. Lowe moved that at 
any contested election for a county or a borough every voter 
should be entitled to a number of votes equal to the number 
of vacant seats, and might give all such votes to 1 one candi- 
•date or to many, as he liked. The minority would thus get 
representation. The proposition was not well received in 
the House of Commons. Disliked by Gladstone, Bright, 
and Disraeli, it was defeated by a vote of 314 to 173. In 
the House of Lords, however, a minority provision moved 
by Lord Cairns—that at a contested election for any county 
-or borough represented by three members, no person should 
vote for more than two candidates 2 —was carried by a] 
majority of 91 and was accepted in the House of Commons 
“by a majority of 49. The clause had the general effect of 
■causing the election of a member from: the party unrepre¬ 
sented heretofore. In some places, however, iit was seen 
that a careful distribution of votes in such a way that each 
of the three candidates from the dominant party would re¬ 
ceive only the number strictly necessary to obtain the re¬ 
quisite majority at the poll, led to the selection of the three 
members and the exclusion of any representative from the 

1 For the future of the ballot vide chap. vi. 

J In the City of London which had four seats, an elector was to vote 
for only three candidates. 


2l6 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[216 

minority. The organization which obtained the desired 
results by controlling the activity of the electors came to be 
known as the Caucus and was an important development in 
party electoral machinery . 1 On the whole, the minority pro¬ 
vision was not so successful that advocates of Hare’s 
scheme 2 did not desire change. 

After a discussion of the schedules specifying the 
boroughs and counties to be affected by the increase or 
decrease of members, or the boon of enfranchisement, had 
been finished, the bill finally emerged from the committee 
“in its amended shape on the ninth oif July; when, 
amidst considerable cheering, the Preamble, which is always 

4 

*A. Lawrence Lowell, The Government of England, 2 vols. (New 
York, 1917, new edition), vol. i, pp. 483 et seq., and M. Ostrogorski* 
Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties, 2 vols. (New York, 
1902), vol. i, pp. 161 et seq . 

3 Thomas Hare (1806-91) was a political reformer who wanted ta 
secure proportional representation of all classes 1 including minorities. 
His views were set forth in his Treatise on the Election of Representa¬ 
tives, Parliamentary and Municipal (1st edition, 1859). Much was 
written for this system and John Stuart Mill presented the plan in 
1867 in an amendment for the representation of minorities. According to= 
Mill’s explanation in the House of Commons votes should be received 
in every locality for others than the local candidates, and if there were 
found in the whole kingdom other electors, in the proper number, who- 
fixed their choice on the same person, that person should be declared duly 
elected. The number of votes needed to elect would, of course, depend on 
the number of members of the House compared with the total number 
of electors in the country. Lest a few popular names should get 
nearly all the votes and many voters, therefore, lose in reality their 
votes, a second name was to be put on the voting paper for whom the 
vote could be used if it was not required by the candidate who stood 
first. In case this second candidate also should not need the vote, the 
voter might add a third, etc. The mode of sorting the voting papers, 
is discussed in detail in Hare’s book. Mill pointed out that the scheme 
would do away with the danger of having some classes in the nation 
swamped by other classes (a fact which would please conservative 
persons) and would permit everybody to be represented (a fact pleasing 
to democrats). Cf. Hansard, vol. clxxxvii, pp. 1347 et seq. 


217] DISRAELI’S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 2l y 

considered last, was agreed to, and the bill was ordered to 
be reported to the House.” 1 

Of the amendments now presented, none were of import¬ 
ance. 3 Finally on the fifteenth of July the motion was made 
to read the Reform bill a third time. A last opportunity 
was presented for a review of the measure itself or of its 
passage, and several of the leading members took advantage 
of that opportunity. Viscount Cranborne, leading seceder 
from the cabinet, cried out that all the precautions, guaran¬ 
ties, and securities of the second reading had disappeared. 
“If it be a Conservative triumph,” said he, “ to have intro¬ 
duced a Bill guarded with precautions and securities, and to 
have abandoned every one of those precautions and securi¬ 
ties at the bidding of your opponents, then in the whole 
course of your annals I will venture to* say the Conserva¬ 
tive party has won no 1 triumph so signal as this.” 31 The 
result of the bill would be that 800,000 would be added as 
voters and that there would be 1,000,000 workingmen as 
against 500,000 of the other classes. But—he was the 
“ champion of a forlorn cause.” 

And Mr. Lowe also complained—“ We are about, on this 
momentous occasion, to enter upon a new era, when the bag 
which holds the winds will be untied, and we shall be sur¬ 
rounded by a perpetual whirl of change, alteration, innova¬ 
tion, and revolution.” 4 To him the principle of the bill was 
the principle of numbers as against wealth and intellect. 
England now must necessarily turn her attention to the 
education of the masses. But another of the Adullamites, 
Lord Elcho, quite gladly accepted the bill as a satisfactory 

1 Annual Register , 1867, p. 87. 

•One change, however, allowed a holder of certain offices to change 
to another without vacating his seat. 

* Hansard, vol. clxxxviii (July 15), pp. 1526-1539. 

4 Hansard f vol. clxxxviii, p. 1540. 


218 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [ 2 i8 

settlement; to go down at once to household suffrage was 
much safer than to admit merely a portion of the working 
classes, 

Mr. Bright, too-, was not sorry that the House had agreed 
to the bill although it had gone farther than he had ex¬ 
pected it to go. He had always contended, he said, that 
household suffrage was the best permanent foundation for 
the franchise even when he had been ready to* accept as 
compromises, propositions falling short of his own views. 

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, giving the last of the 
important speeches, declared that the Government had acted 
in a consistent manner in every respect; that they had fol¬ 
lowed out a suggestion of 1859 in basing the borough fran¬ 
chise on household suffrage; that they had -never been in 
agreement with those who advocated the admission of a cer¬ 
tain portion of the working classes to serve as a sort of 
Praetorian guard to- the middle classes ; that they had done 
well in offering the resolutions inasmuch as the House had 
finally accepted the policy on which they were based; that 
the securities had not been yielded to Mr. Gladstone’s im¬ 
perious dictations but more to the wishes of the Conserva¬ 
tive party. In support of the latter statement he said that 
out of twenty-six divisions in committee, Gladstone had 
voted in eighteen against the Government. 1 He acknow¬ 
ledged the assistance and co-operation of the House and 
concluded by asserting that he did not believe the country 
to be in danger. “I think England is safe” he declared, 
“in something much More precious than her accumulated 
capital—her accumulated experience; she is safe in her 
national character, in her fame, in the tradition of a 
thousand years, and in that glorious future which I believe 
awaits her.” 2 The motion was then made afnd the question 

1 Disraeli fails to go into detail in this matter. 

* Hansard, vol. clxxxviii, pp. 1599-1614. 


2 ig] DISRAELI'S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 2 1 $ 

proposed “ that the Bill be now read the third time.” 
“ There was a loud and general cry of 4 Aye/ ” says the 
Annual Register, “ and only one solitary voice uttered ‘ No/ 
Whereupon the further question ‘ That the bill do pass ’ was 
declared, amidst considerable cheering, to' be carried.” 1 
The House of Lords now had the opportunity to ex¬ 
press its opinions on Reform. Gladstone, writing years 
after the passage of the Reform bill of 1867 had become an 
event of the past, was of the belief that the Government 
counted on the Lords blocking their measure or at least put¬ 
ting in important restrictions on the granting of the fran¬ 
chise. 2 Public opinion, he thought, made it impossible, how¬ 
ever, for the Lords to pursue such a course. And whether 
or not Gladstone’s belief was the correct one, the historian of 
to-day may assume without much doubt that the upper 
House would have been unwilling to accept such a radical 
measure without having pressure put upon it, had the 
measure come from; the hands of the Liberals. 31 As it was, 
there were times during the debates when opposition be¬ 
came strong. However, Lord Derby got the House fairly 
well in hand at the beginning by summoning to a meeting at 
his official residence those members whom he regarded as the 
supporters of his administration. There he asked that 
the measure should be passed as speedily as possible and 
with as few alterations as possible. Those present agreed 
to this request. Many of them' may have thought in terms of 
their chief when he so well defended the bill with that simple 
argument attributed to him: “ Don’t you see how it has 
dished the Whigs? ” 4 

1 Annual Register, 1867, p. 91. 

* Cf. Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. ii, p. 226; but vide also Monypenny 
and Buckle, vol. iv, pp. 550 - 551 - 

*Vide Trevelyan, Life of John Bright, p. 379. 

4 Cf. Granville’s speech in Hansard, vol. clxxxviii, pp. 1856-1863, and 
also the Spectator, August 10, 1867. 


220 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[220 

In the discussions of the bill and the amendments in the 
House of Lords the reader will find few arguments which 
had not been given previously in the House of Commons. 
A few amendments were adopted; the two of importance 
dealt with the use of voting papers and the representation 
of minorities. 1 On the whole, the Earl of Derby was much 
pleased with the “ spirit of impartiality and consideration ” 
in which the House dealt with the measure. He acknow¬ 
ledged the experimental character of the bill: 

No doubt we are making a great experiment and “ taking a 
leap in the dark/’ 2 but I have the greatest confidence in the 
sound sense of my fellow countrymen; and I entertain a 
strong hope that the extended franchise which we are now 
conferring upon them will be the means of placing the insti¬ 
tutions of this country on a firmer basis, and that the passing 
of this measure will tend to increase the loyalty and content¬ 
ment of a great portion of Her Majesty’s subjects. 3 

The bill was passed, and sent to the Commons. Disraeli 
recommended that the amendments of the Lords be adopted. 
In spite of the opposition of Bright and Gladstone the “ re¬ 
stricted vote ” proposal as is noted above, was carried; the 
other amendment, however, was not passed. The House 
of Lords accepted the decision of the Commons and on the 
fifteenth of August “ the bill for Amending the Representa¬ 
tion of the People ” received the royal assent. 4 

1 A clause enacting that Parliament should not henceforth be dis¬ 
solved on the demise of the Crown, was added by the Lords. 

“Spencer Walpole in his History of Twenty-five Years, vol. ii, p. 193, 
discusses the origin of this phrase, showing that Cranborne had used it 
previously in 1867, and that Disraeli had used it in 1866. I find, how¬ 
ever, the same expression used in Vivian Grey (London, 1881, original 
edition in 1826-27), P- 87: Grey makes a “leap in the dark” to save all. 

3 Hansard, vol. clxxxix, pp. 951-952. 

4 The 30 and 31 Viet., c. 102. 


221 


221 ] DISRAELI’S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 

At this point the reader who has followed the account of 
the passing of the Reform bill of 1867 .may well ask the 
questions: “Whose bill, after all, is it?” “ Doesi fche 
credit for the measure belong to Gladstone as many have 
asserted; to Bright as many likewise have asserted; or to 
Disraeli ? ” “ And whether or not it is the work oif Disraeli, 

why did he and the Conservatives pass such a radical 
measure, or allow such a measure to' pass ? ” 

Was Gladstone the one who* changed a measure which at 
its introduction was very conservative to a piece of radical 
legislation? Such, indeed, has been the assertion of many 
of his contemporaries and of many of the historians. Vis¬ 
count Cranborne, one of the seceders from the Government, 
declared before the third reading, that the bill was the work 
of Gladstone: 

My right honorable and gallant Friend near me (General Peel) 
said that this was a compound Bill, and that he did not know 
to whose authorship it was due. I cannot help thinking that if 
he had referred to the record I have just mentioned—if he had 
taken the original scheme of the Government, and had cor¬ 
rected it by the demands of the right honorable Gentleman, the 
Member for South Lancashire (Gladstone), he would have 
with tolerable exactness the Bill as it now stands. I mention 
this because I see with enormous astonishment that the pass¬ 
ing of this Bill is spoken of as a Conservative triumph. Now, 
it is desirable that the paternity of all the strange objects that 
come into the world should be properly established; and I 
wish to know whether this Bill, as is generally supposed, is 
exclusively the offspring of the Government, or whether the 
right honorable Gentleman, the Member for South Lancashire, 
has not had something to do with it? If he has, it follows as 
an indisputable axiom that it cannot be a Conservative triumph. 
Now, I heard the demands which the right honorable Gentle¬ 
man, the Member for South Lancashire, made on the second 
reading of the Bill. . . . They are ten in number: — First, he 


222 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[222 

demanded the lodger franchise. Well, the lodger franchise 
has been given. Secondly, and this is the only doubtful one, 
provisions to prevent traffic in votes. . . The right honorable 
Gentleman next demanded the abolition of obnoxious distinc¬ 
tions between compounders and non-compounders. Not only 
have those obnoxious distinctions been abolished, but all dis¬ 
tinctions whatever have disappeared. The fourth demand of 
the right honorable Gentleman was that the taxing franchise 
should be omitted. It has been omitted. Fifthly, that the 
dual vote should be omitted. It has been omitted. Sixthly, 
that the re-distribution of seats must be considerably enlarged. 
It has been enlarged full fifty per cent. Seventhly, that the 
county franchise must be reduced. It has been reduced to 
something like the point at which it stood in the proposal of 
last year. Eighthly, that the voting papers must be omitted. 
To my extreme regret, the voting papers have been omitted. 
The last two demands were that the educational and savings 
banks’ franchises should be omitted. These two franchises 
have been omitted. ... No man in this House of Commons 
can remember a Government who have introduced a Bill of 
this importance, and who have yielded in Committee Amend¬ 
ments so vitally altering the whole constitution and principle 
of the Bill as has been done in the present instance. 1 

Lord Elcho on the same evening decided to do as others 
had been doing—to devote some time “ to personal explana¬ 
tions and to Parliamentary condolences and prophecies.” 
He as an Adullamite was not sorry that the question was 
being settled but he blamed Gladstone for sweeping away 
the securities. 2 

If we turn from the speeches of the members of Parlia¬ 
ment to the writings of the historians of the period we 
again find it said that the bill was the work of Gladstone. 
Cox, in the Whig and Tory Administrations, writes: 

1 Hansard, vol. clxxxviii (July 15), pp. 1526-29. 

2 Hansard , vol. clxxxviii, pp. 1574-1576. 


223] DISRAELI'S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 22 ^ 

The allegation that the Reform Act of 1867 is mainly or sub¬ 
stantially the work of the Conservative Government, is one 
of the most impudent falsifications of history that was ever 
attempted. Neither in form, nor in substance, does the statute 
actually passed agree with the measure introduced by Mr. Dis¬ 
raeli. The Act comprises sixty-one sections, and of them 
there are but four (1, 12, 49, 54) which are the work of the 
Conservative Ministry. 1 

In The Reform Bills of 1866 and 1867, Cox states that 
Gladstone had early enumerated ten principal defects in the 
bill and that an amendment “ for every one .... except 
the second (which involved a proposal that occupiers of 
houses below some specified value should be excluded from 
the suffrage), has been carried out in the Reform Act now 
passed.” 2 

Sir Spencer Walpole, in his History of Twenty-five Years, 
gives this conclusion: 

The fact, however, is that, if the first edition of the Reform 
Bill of 1867 was the work of Lord Derby, Mr. Disraeli, and 
the Conservative Cabinet, the last edition of the measure was 
the work of Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone had, no doubt, 
many difficulties to encounter. His party was disorganised; 
he was himself regarded by some of his followers with dis¬ 
trust. And cave and tea-room formed convenient refuges for 
the discontented to frequent. Yet Mr. Gladstone, in this mem¬ 
orable Session, succeeded in making all the alterations in the 
Bill which he declared in the debate on the second reading to 
be necessary. And if, therefore, to Mr. Disraeli attaches the 
blame of surrendering, one after another, the securities and 
safeguards, on which he professed that he relied, to Mr. 
Gladstone belongs the credit of carrying the changes which he 

^omersham Cox, Whig and Tory Administrations (London, 1868), 
P- Si. 

•Cox, A History of the Reform Bills of 1866 and 1867 , pp. 134-135. 


224 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [224 

pronounced to be indispensable for the conversion of a bad 
Bill into a good one. 1 

Ini spite of the foregoing statements the person who fol¬ 
lows the course of the Reform bill is apt to< have a suspicion 
that credit for the bill does not belong to Gladstone. What¬ 
ever influence he may have had on some of the amendments, 
on the point of making the bill a democratic measure Glad¬ 
stone was not the leader. Never in his life was he more 
surprised than when he found that Disraeli had accepted 
Hodgkinson’s amendment to do away with the compound 
householder, 2 although he stood for that amendment himself, 
doubtless for political reasons. He did not want manhood 
or household suffrage but put forth a great struggle to 
get a £5 rating as the basis of the franchise. In a letter to 
William Horsfall on August 8, 1866, he wrote:* 

Sir—In reply to your letter of the 6th, I beg respectfully to 
express my desire that my views respecting Reform in Parlia¬ 
ment should be gathered from my own acts, and from my 
language, in which they have been amply stated. I do not 
agree in the demand either for manhood or for household 
suffrage; while I own with regret that the conduct of the 
opponents of the Government measure of this year has done 
much to encourage that demand, which, but for such opposi¬ 
tion, would scarcely have been heard of. You are at liberty 
to make such use of this letter as you may think fit, and I 
remain, Sir, your very humble servant.—W. E. Gladstone. 

And for his views 4 toward the end of the session of the 

1 Walpole, History of Twenty-five Years, vol. ii, p. 196. 

2 Cf. supra, p. 210. 

*To be found in the Tunes, August 11, 1866. 

4 In reply to a deputation of the National Reform Union Gladstone said 
that the House of 'Commons was inveigled and tripped into household 
suffrage when probably not twenty members were in favor of it. Cf. 
News of the World, May 19, 1867. 


225] DISRAELI'S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 22 ^ 

following year, the Fortnightly Review 1 asserted with a 
degree of certainty that he had not apparently swerved a 
hair’s breath from his last year’s views when he never con¬ 
cealed his aversion to household suffrage as the basis of the 
franchise. 

As a matter of fact, Gladstone’s attitude toward the £5 
rating caused him some unpopularity among members of 
the Reform League. At the meetings protests 2 were made 
against the half-way measure which the Liberals seemed 
apt to accept, and Gladstone himself was named 3 by the 
London Working Men’s Association as one who had at¬ 
tempted to draw an arbitrary line of rating below which 
householders should not be admitted to the franchise, and 
by a speaker 4 * at a Reform meeting as a member of the 
Manchester party who had been trying to do all he could 
to trip up the Government in order to* make the bill less 
extensive. It seems to be a myth, then,—this tradition of 
Gladstone as the author of the Reform Bill of 1867. 6 

But what about John Bright and the bill? The North 

1 Fortnightly Review, vol. vii (June 1, 1867), pp. 755 and 756. 

*C/. meeting of February 27 (the Times, February 28), of March 6, 
of the London Working Men’s Association at St. Martin’s Hall (April 
16), etc. 

3 The Times, April 17, 1867. 

4 Mr. Lucraft; vide the Times, July 4, 1867. 

‘As a matter of fact, Gladstone himself, toward the middle of the 
session, gave the following opinion of his power, when he wrote in 
reply to Mr. Crawford, one of the members for the City, as to whether 
he intended to persevere in moving the different amendments on the 
Reform bill of which he had given notice: “The country can hardly 

fail now to be aware that those gentlemen of Liberal opinions whose 
convictions allow them to act unitedly upon this question, are not a 
majority, but a minority of the existing House of Commons, and that 
they have not the power they wer^ supposed to possess of limiting or 
directing the action of the Administration, or of shaping the provisions 
cf the Reform Bill.” Cf. Annals of Our Time, April 18, 1867. 


226 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [226 

British Review, for instance, declared that the main outline 
and the chief provision of the scheme were clearly Mr, 
Bright’s. 1 In the House of Commons Mr. Osborne 2 on 
the third reading said: 

We have heard something tonight about the paternity of this 
.Bill. There is no doubt who is its father. The Chancellor of 
the Exchequer is no doubt its putative father, but he is not 
the real father. This offspring is a stolen child; the right 
honorable Gentleman has stolen it, and then, as the School for 
Scandal has it, he has treated it as the gipsies do stolen chil¬ 
dren,—he has disfigured it to make it pass for his own. But 
the real author of this Bill is an honorable Gentleman who sits 
below me—the honorable Member for Birmingham. I have 
got a draught of his Bill of 1858, and in that Bill there is this 
mischievous proposal of household suffrage based upon rating. 
It is the honorable Gentleman who is the real father of it—he 
ought to be a right honorable Gentleman and be sitting cheek 
by jowl with the putative father of the Bill, and why he is 
not, I do not know. It is all very well to speak of this as a 
Conservative measure. Why, Sir, the hands that brought in 
the Bill are the hands of Lord Derby, but the voice was the 
voice of John Bright. Now, that must be a great consolation 
to all the Gentlemen on those Benches who for years have 
been denouncing the honorable Member for Birmingham, and 
accusing him of Americanizing our institutions—for “Amer¬ 
icanizing ” was the word. The right honorable Gentleman on 
the Treasury Bench and his Colleagues are Americanizers, for 
they share with the honorable Member for Birmingham in the 
merit of the measure; and the Conservative party are nothing 
more than votaries and supporters of the honorable Member 
for Birmingham. 3 

Trevelyan in his Life of John Bright points out that Bright 

1 North British Review, September, 1867, p. 223. 

8 An Independent Liberal. 

8 Hansard, vol. clxxxviii, p. 1583. 


227] DISRAELI’S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 22 y 

in 1858 and 1859 made proposals which with very slight and 
quite immaterial chainges, became the basis of the enfran¬ 
chising act passed nine years later; 1 that in 1867 Bright 
sent Disraeli a memorandum suggesting the terms of the bill 
as passed; 2 that Bright himself declared he was becoming 
an authority with the Tory party. 3 

To the person who tries to sum up the importance of the 
various leaders in the Reform discussion, Bright, at least in 
one respect, does stand out as an important personage. He 
had great influence in keeping up the popular agitation. 
Friends and enemies alike acknowledged this. 4 Now it was 
this popular agitation which caused the Conservatives to 
bring in a bill and apparently had somewhat to do< with the 
terms of that bill. But when the reader goes through the 
account of the passing of the bill itself, he will note that 
Bright all too often kept to his leader Gladstone rather than 
to the other leadiing Radicals or to Disraeli. He spoke for 
the hard and fast line, not the £5 line of Gladstone, but one 
at £4 or £3, and even though, as Trevelyan says, 5 he was the 
prime mover of the Hodgkinsom amendment, he had no 
idea that it would pass. Bright followed Gladstone so 
closely as a matter of fact that he fell under the same popular 
disfavor at times as did Gladstone. 6 

And what can be said for Disraeli? His own account 
of the passage of the bill may be read in a speech delivered in 
Edinburgh at a banquet given in the Corn Exchange by 
twelve hundred of the leading members of the Conservative 

Trevelyan, Life of John Bright, p. 271. 

3 Ibid., pp. 371 - 372 . 

8 Ibid., p. 372, on the fourth of March. 

4 C/. the estimate of Bright’s work in this respect inT.Wemyss Reid, 
Life of the Right Honorable W. E. Forster, vol. i, pp. 392-396. 

6 Trevelyan, Life of John Bright, p. 37 & 

6 Vide supra, p. 124. 


228 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [228 

party in Scotland. 1 —Having decided that the Conservatives 
had a right to deal with Reform and feeling that they 
ought to deal with it, he had for'a considerable period 
endeavored continuously to lay down the principles upon 
which a measure of Parliamentary Reform ought to be 
founded. He and those of his opinions had to prepare the 
mind of the country—“ to educate, if it be not arrogant to 
use such a phrase ’”—to educate his party on this subject of 
Reform. These were the points which he tried to impress 
upon the conscience and conviction of the country: first that 
the measure be a complete and comprehensive one, lest they 
be seduced into dealing with the question in detail. “ And 
for this simple reason, that if you deal with it in detail you 
may indeed establish a democratic constitution.” 2 In the 
second place, no proposal for grouping boroughs could be 
sanctioned, 3 and in the third place, there should be a bona i 
fide boundary commission. 4 A fourth point was that added 
representation must be given to the counties, and a fifth was 
that the principle of rating should be the basis of the 
borough franchise. When there was a change of Govern¬ 
ment, the Conservatives had come into power. “ We 
brought in a Reform Bill; we passed a Reform Bill; and 
now we ask you to consider, were the five points that during 
these seven years ... I impressed upon Parliament and 
the country, were they obtained or not?” These points 
formed, of course, Disraeli indicates, the main outline of 
the bill as passed. He then goes on— 

1 The Chancellor of the Exchequer in Scotland, being Two Speeches 
Delivered by Him in the City of Edinburgh (Edinburgh and London, 
1867). 

2 Ibid., pp. 11 and 12— i. e., Disraeli explains, the borough and county- 
franchises and redistribution must be taken up together to keep “ politi¬ 
cal equilibrium.’' 

You must get a certain class of boroughs, by appealing to their 
patriotism, to spare you one of their members. 

4 To see that borough occupiers should not become county electors, etc. 


229 ] DISRAELI’S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 22 g 

and then I am told, when measures recommended to the coun¬ 
try during seven years have been so triumphantly carried into 
effect, that we have done nothing, that it is our opponents who 
have suggested the Bill. I can only say this, that if you had 
seen the countenance of the gentleman 1 who recently made a 
speech in this city when we did carry that Bill, you would not 
have read in those lineaments that triumph of the Liberal 
party after a toil of seventy years of which we have heard so 
much. I must say I never saw such a command over the ex¬ 
ultation peculiar to man when he succeeds in an object dear 
to his heart and his friends. 2 

Monypenny and Buckle, too, contend that the bill was the 
work of Disraeli: 

When Disraeli did finally acknowledge that decisive action 
was necessary, he was prompt, in conjunction with Derby, in 
sweeping aside temporary expedients, and founding himself 
upon an abiding principle. There is no evidence to show 
whether the definite acceptance of rating household suffrage is 
due rather to Disraeli or to Derby; both based themselves 
upon it in January, 1867. Both, too, cordially accepted the 
only method by which a settlement could be affected — the 
policy of welcoming, and deferring to, the co-operation of the 
House of Commons in the application of the principle adopted. 
But Derby was not so quick as Disraeli to see that the frank 
acceptance of this method could hardly fail to involve the dis¬ 
appearance of checks and securities to which he originally at¬ 
tached importance. The actual determination of what amend¬ 
ments should be accepted and what resisted necessarily de¬ 
volved mainly on the leader of the House of Commons; and 
for the shape in which the Bill emerged from Committee—for 

1 Reference to Mr. James Moncreiff (Liberal), member for Edinburgh. 

2 Much of interest is to be found in the remaining sections of this 
speech. Disraeli states that the Tories caused him to give up plural 
voting, the two-years* residence clause, etc., and that when the Liberals 
asked that the compound householder be done away with, it was the 
very proposal he desired, to carry out his principle. 


230 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [230 

the fact, indeed, that it emerged with safety at all—Disraeli 
was almost solely responsible. 1 

In fact the student who goes carefully over the history 
of the passing of the Reform bill of 1867 may be expected 
to agree with Derby who said 2 that it was mainly due to 
Disraeli’s tact, temper, and judgment, that the arduous un¬ 
dertaking in which they were engaged had not resulted, in¬ 
stead of a triumphant success, in disastrous failure. For 
although Disraeli consulted the House, apparently he kept 
the upper hand. With his principle 3 of personal rating 4 
as against an artificial line he withstood the attacks of the 
Liberals. He accepted the Hodgkinson amendment and 
by his very acceptance led the Conservative party to' accept 
it. This act of leading the Conservative party to house¬ 
hold suffrage is remarkable, whether or not, as Cox sug¬ 
gests, Disraeli was forced to do so, when he came to realize 
that his principle as applied in the original intent would en¬ 
franchise communities in a most haphazard manner accord¬ 
ing to a very capricious distribution of the compound house¬ 
holding system. 5 Here as at other times Disraeli with almost 

1 Monypenny and Buckle, Life of Disraeli, vol. iv, p. 562. 

2 Monypenny and Buckle, vol. iv, p. 554. 

3 Cox, A History of the Reform Bills of 1866 and 1867, pp. 122 et seq., 
points out that either test—the payment of rates, or the possession of 
houses of a particular value—is artificial. “ Both criteria are imperfect, 
and only in rough imperfect ways serve to eliminate the drunkard, the 
spendthrift, the sluggard, the vagrant, and the profligate.” 

4 Ibid ., pp. 169 et seq., Cox says: The principle of personal payment 
“ is not in the Reform Act, it never had a place in any edition of the 
Reform Bill.” Public Opinion, December 7, 1867, discusses legal decisions 
on payments of rates. Quoting the Manchester Examiner it states that 
“ payment of rates by agent is for all intents and purposes the same as 
payment by the principal.” 

b Ibid., pp. 197 et seq. Vide also Monypenny and Buckle, vol. iv, p. 
563, where is to be found an acknowledgement of this fact. Vide Cox's 
further statement (pp. 206 et seq.) on Disraeli’s attempts to neutralize 
the effects of Hodgkinson’s amendment. 


231] DISRAELI'S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 2 ^1 

superhuman cleverness, extricated himself easily from an 
embarrassing situation and made his blunders contribute to 
his success. 1 On the other hand those who like to find 
consistency in a man, may well point out that in the de¬ 
bates on the 1866 bill Disraeli had stood for lateral rather 
than vertical extension of the suffrage. With even greater 
effect can they point out that after the passage of the bill, 
Disraeli was not anxious to regard it as a democratic 
measure. He himself was unwilling to accept praise (or 
blame) for that which calls forth to-day our laudation. In 
the House of Commons he said: 

There are 4,500,000 inhabited houses in England. I do not 
pretend to speak with severe statistical accuracy, but I think I 
do not make much of a mistake. Not more than a moiety of 
these, even if the Bill passes, will be inhabited by persons 
qualified to exercise the franchise. Then if household suf¬ 
frage be democracy, what is this all about? 2 

In that speech at Edinburgh, already mentioned, 3 he said: 

... We have not established household suffrage in England. 
There are, I think I may say, probably four million houses in 
England. Under our ancient laws, and under the Act of 
Lord Grey, about a million of those householders possess the 
franchise. Under the new Act of 1867, something more than 
500,000 will be added to that million. Well, then, I want to 
know if there are four million householders, and a million and 
a half in round numbers have the suffrage, how can household 
suffrage be said to be established in England? 4 . . . Are we 

1 Cf. Westminster Review , July, 1867, p. 185. 

*Hansard, vol. clxxxviii, p. 1113. This was as far along in the session 
as July 5. 

3 Cf. supra, pp. 227-8. 

4 The obvious answer is that Disraeli was clouding the issue by trying 
to prove that there was not household isuffrage in England as a whole 
when no one would suggest that the measure was democratic except as 
it applied to the boroughs. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


232 


[232 


to be frightened at such a result as this? Are we really to 
believe that with a constituency of a million and a half—one 
million of whom we know of our own knowledge for a con¬ 
siderable space of time have exercised that suffrage according 
to the traditions of the country, and are now assisted in the 
fulfilment of that public duty by some half million more 
equally influenced by the traditions of the country—are we to 
believe that this is establishing a Democratic Government in 
England? If that can be maintained, even by an ex-Lord 
Advocate, I should look upon it as one of the most preposter¬ 
ous conclusions. 1 


Of course we may question whether Disraeli actually meant 
what he said or whether he was trying to smooth matters for 
some of the less radical people with whom he was dealing. 
No definite answer can be given. Disraeli will always re¬ 
main to us, at least in certain respects, as he was to John 
Bright, the mystery man. 

To those who believe that credit for the bill belongs 
neither to Disraeli nor to Bright, there is a fourth as¬ 
sumption open: that it was nobody’s bill; that public opinion 
as stirred up partly by economic and social conditions, partly 
by the Reform League, partly by John Bright, partly by 
trade unions, dictated that a liberal bill should be passed; 
that one section of the House was merely trying to' outbid, 
for popular favor, the other, and thus it happened that ai 
radical Hodgkinson amendment proposed by the Liberals 
for political reasons was accepted by the Conservatives for 
like reasons. Considerable arguments can be adduced for 
this belief. 

Before the year was very far advanced the Times had 
admitted that the House of Commons would probably shelve 
the subject of Reform at once if members could have the 


1 The Chancellor of the Exchequer in Scotland, pp. 14 and 15; cf. 
also the Times, October 30, 1867. 


2 33 


233 ] DISRAELI’S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 

needful protection, and were not bound as gentlemen to tell 
how they voted. 1 After the measure had passed the third 
reading, Lord Grey of the House of Lords said that it was 
an admitted fact that a majority of the members of the 
House of Commons really disapproved of the bill to which 
they had formally assented. 2 Earl Russell was rather 
afraid of the measure, especially, he said, because of a prob¬ 
able increase of corruption among the classes who really 
took no interest in politics. 3 And Lord Derby, it will be 
remembered, in spite of his “ greatest confidence in the 
sound sense ” of his fellow countrymen, came out with the 
phrase: “ No doubt we are making a great experiment 
and taking a leap in the dark.” 4 

Lord Shaftesbury, great friend of the workingmen as 
he was, spoke of the gross hypocrisy of the members of 
Parliament; “ with the exception of a few advanced Demo¬ 
crats, they all detest and fear the measure.” 5 Carlyle in 
his “ Shooting Niagara: And After?”, 6 apropos of the Re¬ 
form measure, declared—“ Traitorous Politicians, grasping 
at votes, even votes from the rabble, have brought it on.” 
The Quarterly Review before a bill was brought in, feared 
lest politicians, working upon the pledges which the lower 
ranks of the present constituencies had extorted from candi¬ 
dates, would create a fictitious political necessity to which 
the present organization of the House of Commons might 
induce the majority to submit, in spite of its convictions. 7 

1 The Times, February 5, 1867 (mentioned supra, p. 122). 

*Cf. Annual Register, 1867, p. 94. 

8 Annual Register, 1867, p. 108. 

4 Hansard, vol. clxxxix, p. 952. 

5 Edwin Hodder, The Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of Shaftes¬ 
bury, 3 vols. (London, 1888), vol. iii, p. 218. 

6 To be found in Macmillan’s, October, 1867. 

T Quarterly Review, January, 1866, p. 256. 


234 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[234 

Blackwood's, in June of 1867, spoke of the meetings which 
had gone on all over the country, and at which the language 
held was always the same—that nothing would content the 
people except registered manhood suffrage protected by the 
ballot—and declared that a House of Commons of which 
the majority should refuse to concede all that was now con¬ 
ceded, would find itself at daggers-drawn with the bulk of 
the people. 1 Disraeli himself, it is said, 2 heard the voice of 
the people and felt the force of the argument that “ the pot 
was on the point of boiling over, and that those who kept 
it seething would get scalded for their pains.” In fact the 
Edinburgh Review states that in the great case of Mr. 
Hodgkinson’s amendment Disraeli had made a concession 
to the popular stir threatening to grow into a tempest from 
without. 3 

It is probably true that this stir from without had its 
effect upon Disraeli and that he as the official who guided f he 
bill through Parliament deserves approbation. 

Disraeli deserves approbation provided, it may be sug¬ 
gested, he put through the bill not as a shrewd political act 
but on good faith that he was doing the country and the 
working class a benefit. Thus it brought up the much 
mooted question as to the reason for Disraeli’s action. 
Did he play successfully the part of a Vivian Grey in 
shrewdly outmanceuvering his opponents on the political 
field or was he putting into effect some of his social theories 
as displayed in Sybil in the belief that social betterment for 
the working classes would come with the franchise? Or 
perhaps the real motive was a combination of these ? 

In the speech delivered at Edinburgh, Disraeli has given 

1 Blackwood’s, June, 1867, p. 776. 

* Vide Frazer’s, November, 1867, p. 658. 

* Edinburgh Review , October, 1867, p. 572; at least he could say this 
to his followers. 


235] DISRAELI’S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 235 

in general terms his view as to why the Conservatives dealt 
with the question: everybody must have felt it to be abso¬ 
lutely necessary for Lord Derby in 1866, to deal with this 
question. For fifteen years every prime minister and every 
party had dealt with Reform and had proved itself inade¬ 
quate to the occasion. “ And what is that but a premium to 
revolution? ” Hence it was the duty of the Tories to try 
to deal with it. The failure of another Reform bill would 
have been a disadvantage to Lord Derby, he acknowledged, 
but more than that it would have been a source of great 
danger to the country. 1 

So because of patriotic sentiments, because of the impel¬ 
ling force of popular opinion, Disraeli had been careful by 
various manipulations to pass the bill. But not every one 
living in 1867 and not every one of a later period has accepted 
this statement of affairs as given by Disraeli. And granting 
that the popular outcry did give Disraeli a leverage with 
which to move his party from the old position on such a 
question, and actually made the settlement of the question a 
necessity, one may yet declare that the motive of Disraeli 
was strictly political: that he desired to “dish” the Whigs. 
The Spectator for August 10, 1867, for instance, declared 
that Disraeli had admitted a party motive for the Reform 
bill by his statement that he had disturbed the Whigs’ 
monopoly of Reform. The Edinburgh Review thought 2 the 
Conservative party willing to bear anything and to do any¬ 
thing in order to make itself politically powerful by pas¬ 
sing the bill: “ That (the Conservative) party, sore at its 
long exclusion, and determined to clutch the prize it had 
obtained, was in a humor to bear much. Unlimited aban¬ 
donment of principles and policy on Reform, deceit in any 
quantity, vacillation without end—for these it was well pre- 

1 The Chancellor of the Exchequer in Scotland, pp. 6 and 7. 

2 Edinburgh Review, October, 1867, p. 543. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


236 


[236 


pared.” Shaftesbury speaks of Disraeli and Gladstone as 
two tigers over a carcass—each for power and salary; and: 
quotes Derby as telling his friends that if they passed his 
bill they would be in office for many years. 1 

But granting that political power was one of Disraeli’s 
motives in passing the bill, that motive in him was no> more 
unworthy than it was in Gladstone—the attacks of the 
Liberal papers and speakers notwithstanding. For the/ 
Liberals, says 2 Blackwood's, had palpably used the question 
of a further Reform of Parliament for the last six or eight 
years as a measure of keeping themselves in office and for no 
other earthly purpose. “ Parliamentary Reform! must al¬ 
ways be a popular cry; and nothing could be more easy than 
for the Whigs, driven from office or threatened with ex¬ 
pulsion, to raise that cry, and convert it, if need were, into a 
stern reality.” 3 Lowering the franchise to £7 would help 
the Liberals, said the pamphleteer, 4 as £10 did in 1832. 
“And then, when, under this new regime, the Conserva¬ 
tive party had again succeeded in living down the obloquy 
which must necessarily attach to them with new electors 
admitted to the suffrage in spite of their opposition, the 
same game might be played once more, and a £5 suffrage 
be brought forward,” etc. If this system could be followed 
and the Conservatives were inconsiderate enough to allow 
it, the Liberals might stay in power for the rest of their 
lives. If Disraeli thought such statements as these given 
above were facts, he can hardly be blamed for breaking the 
monopoly. If by granting the franchise to the ordinary 


1 Edwin Hodder, The Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of Shaftes¬ 
bury, vol. iii, pp. 217 and 218. 

2 Blackwood’s, July, 1867, “The Progress of the Question,” p. 113. 

t Ibid., December, 1866, p. 781. 

4 H. W. Cole, The Middle Classes and the Borough Franchise (London, 
1866), p. 26. 


237] DISRAELI’S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 237 

workingmen he could have their support to balance the sup¬ 
port given the Liberals by the middle class and the elite of 
the working class, then might the Conservatives look for 
their share of the power of office. At least that was the 
opinion of many of the leading writers of the day. In the 
North British Review may be found a convenient summary 
of this view: 

Mr. Disraeli believes that the lowest and most ignorant por¬ 
tion of the householders, both in town and country, are the 
most amenable to influence, the most likely to be managed and 
exploite by the Conservative party, most under the control of 
those above them, most dependent, both in circumstances and 
in mind, upon their employers, their landlords, their super¬ 
iors. He thinks, too,—and to a great extent he is right,—that 
their native sympathies, and mental habits, and old prejudices, 
will dispose them to side with the Conservatives, with the old 
families, with “ the land,” with the proprietors of great 
estates, and the inheritors of venerable names. . . . He knew 
that the elite of the artisan class, those intelligent and politically- 
interested workingmen, who lay immediately below the present 
electors, . . . were almost invariably Liberals and Radicals. 1 

And Disraeli and the Conservatives must have been pleased 
in case this assumption is a correct one, by the reports of 
the growth of Conservative feeling as mentioned in the 
newspapers during the summer of 1867. The Times re¬ 
ported on the thirtieth of April the formation of a Conserv¬ 
ative League to be called the Conservative Union and noted 
that in the last six months feeling for Disraeli’s party had 
grown especially in the North where many Conservative 
organizations had sprung up. 2 On the first of May it re¬ 
ported two deputations to Disraeli, one of workingmen from 

1 North British Review , September, 1867, “ The Achievements and the 
Moral of 1867,” pp. 211-212; also vide infra, p. 242. 

2 Cf. supra, p, 130, and also News of the World , May 5 , 1867. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


238 


[238 


Norwich, the other of members of associations, who as¬ 
sured the Government that Conservative feeling was spread¬ 
ing throughout the country, that the workingmen of the 
North were prepared to support the Government, that the 
workingmen of Yorkshire had joined Conservative as¬ 
sociations because they felt that the party was the true and 
only friend of the working classes. These and like reports 
at other times would lead the reader to think that Disraeli 
had a chance for success if he were really playing for the 
votes of the working class. 

But was he not interested in the welfare of the lower clas¬ 
ses? In the address to the workingmen of Edinburgh in 
October, 1867, he definitely made a statement of his in¬ 
terest. The country in general might well be congratulated, 
he said, that the bill the Government had introduced for the 
representation of the people in England had passed into law, 
and he was glad that the working classes of Edinburgh so 
entirely approved of it. Throwing his eye over a Parlia¬ 
mentary career that continuously had prevailed for up¬ 
wards of thirty years, he could not find that he had ever 
taken any part hostile, or intentionally hostile, to the in¬ 
terests of the working classes, or that he had ever been con¬ 
nected with those who ought to be or who intended to* be in 
antagonism with them. He continued: 


Now, gentlemen, during those thirty years there has been a 
great mass of legislation which has been carried in Parlia¬ 
ment affecting the interests of the working classes—measures 
in which they were deeply interested themselves, which they 
promoted by their presence, and which they showed by their 
conduct were dear in every sense to the innermost sentiments 
of their hearts and hearths. I have remarked, in looking over 
that period, that during that time, I think, if I recollect cor¬ 
rectly— of course, upon an occasion like the present I must 
speak with that indulgence which I am sure you will afford to 


239 ] DISRAELI’S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 2 ^ 

one who has no blue-books to refer to, but I think there have 
been thirty-two acts passed relative to the condition of the 
people, and especially of the working classes in this country, 
in which they took the deepest interest — laws affecting their 
wages, their education, their hours of toil, their means of self- 
improvement—laws the object of which was to elevate their 
condition and soften the asperities which are the inevitable 
consequence of probably any state of society that may exist. 
Now, Gentlemen, I can say this, it is some gratification to me, 
and I think it will be fairly admitted, it is some trial of the 
disposition and career of a public man, that of those thirty-two 
acts passed during those thirty years, I have invariably sup¬ 
ported every one. Gentlemen, allow me to tell you that 
though that legislation is now considered as the result of a 
philosophy the propriety and justice of which cannot be ques¬ 
tioned, there was not one of those acts that was not bitterly 
and ably opposed. I will not say now by whom they were op¬ 
posed, or by what party they were opposed, because it is 
neither my wish, nor is it in any way necessary to a meeting 
like the present, that we dwell upon those circumstances. But 
this I will say, they were not opposed by the political party 
with which I am intimately connected. . . . Well, Gentlemen, 
on this subject I may be perhaps permitted to remind you 
that the present session of Parliament has given, I think, some 
evidence that the feelings of her Majesty’s Ministers are un¬ 
changed upon this subject, and that we have not forgotten 
that which is one of the first and principal duties of any Min¬ 
ister, which is to consider whether, by legislation, the condi¬ 
tion of the great body of the people can be improved. 1 

Again, if reference is made to the early writings of 
Disraeli, there may be found at least quasi-democratic lean¬ 
ings. The welfare of the People is to him an important 
topic. That political advantages, however, may be had from 
care for the social welfare of the People is even more than 
suggested. He writes: 

1 The Chancellor of the Exchequer in Scotland , p. 34. 


240 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[240 

Even now it [Toryism] is not dead, but sleepeth; and, in an 
age of political materialism, of confused purposes and per¬ 
plexed intelligence, that aspires only to wealth because it has 
faith in no other accomplishment, as men rifle cargoes on the 
verge of shipwreck, toryism will yet rise from the tomb over 
which Bolingbroke shed his last tear, to bring back strength to 
the Crown, liberty to the subject, and to announce that power 
has only one duty: to secure the social welfare of the people . 1 

In another place he has Egremont’s great speech in 
Parliament so’ interpreted: 

“ He spoke throughout in an exoteric vein/’ said the gray¬ 
headed gentleman, “ and I apprehend was not very sure of his 
audience; but I took him to mean, indeed it was the gist of his 
speech, that if you wished for a time to retain your political 
power, you could only effect your purpose by securing for the 
people greater social felicity.” 2 

Egremont’s opinions are perhaps best stated in his discussion 
with Sybil: 

“If there be a change,” said Sybil, “ it is because in some 
degree the People have learnt their strength.” 

“Ah! dismiss from your mind those fallacious fancies,” 
said Egremont. 

“ The People are not strong; the People never can be strong. 
Their attempts at self-vindication will end only in their suffer¬ 
ing and confusion. It is civilization that has effected, that is 
effecting, this change. It is that increased knowledge of them¬ 
selves that teaches the educated their social duties. There is a 
dayspring in the history of this nation, which perhaps those 
only who are on the mountain tops can as yet recognize. You 
deem you are in darkness, and I see a dawn. The new gen¬ 
eration of the aristocracy of England are not tyrants, not op- 

1 Disraeli, Benjamin, Sybil or the Two Nations (London, 1845), 
p. 82. 

* Ibid ., p. 84. 


241 


241 ] DISRAELI'S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 

pressors, Sybil, as you persist in believing. Their intelligence 
—better than that, their hearts—are open to the responsibility 
of their position. But the work that is before them is no holi¬ 
day-work. It is not the fever of superficial impulse that can 
remove the deep-fixed barriers of centuries of ignorance and 
crime. Enough that their sympathies are awakened; time and 
thought will bring the rest. They are the natural leaders of 
the People, Sybil; believe me, they are the only ones/’ 1 

It can be said that the People, as portrayed in Sybil are 
not able, apparently, to carry on affairs successfully — the 
time for political democracy has not yet come—but by 1867 
Disraeli definitely stated 2 that those called upon to ex¬ 
ercise the franchise were sufficiently educated to fulfill that 
trust. It can be contended that Disraeli, the author of 
1845, is not Disraeli, the statesman of 1867, but according 
to Shaftesbury Disraeli’s interest in the welfare of the 
People had continued. The philanthropist wrote on August 
9, 1866—“ Have spoken to Disraeli, whom; I found, as I 
always found him in the House of Commons, decided and 
true to the cause (of the working class).” 3 At least it can 
be said for Disraeli that he knew of the condition of the 
working classes and had been interested in their welfare 
for a long period. 

But, as the above-quoted passage from Sybil suggests, 
it seems that neither interest in the well-being of the work¬ 
ing class, nor the political motive, taken alone, actuated 
Disraeli, but rather a combination of the two. Circum¬ 
stances such as the revolt of Cranborne and the consequent 
dependence on Radical support 4 and especially the already 

1 Disraeli, op. cit., p. 83. 

2 The Chancellor of the Exchequer in Scotland, “ Speech in Answer to 
an Address Presented by the Working Men of Edinburgh,” p. 40. 

8 Vide Hodder’s Life of Shaftesbury, vol. iii, p. 214. 

l Cf. view of Trevelyan, Life of John Bright, p. 373, on this point. 


242 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[242 


emphasized discontent with economic conditions, undoubt¬ 
edly did much to effect the passage of a democratic measure, 
yet Disraeli’s writings clearly show that he was alive to the 
fact that it would be possible to make the working classes 
see the Conservatives as the champions who would gain for 
them social justice; by causing his party to- give them social 
and political justice, he could bid, cleverly, for their polit¬ 
ical support . 1 At Edinburgh he declared to the workingmen: 

You are indebted ... to the party with which I am connected, 
who upon that occasion evinced a devotion and an energy 
rarely to be equalled in the history of the Constitution of our 
country. They gave no churlish support; they gave no limited 
devotion to their leaders; but impelled by the conviction that 
the settlement of this question was one of vital necessity, they 
determined that it should be settled in a manner which should 
produce concord among all classes of her Majesty’s subjects . 2 

Elsewhere in his speeches he said: “ I have from my very 
earliest public life been of opinion that this assumed and 
affected antagonism between the interests of what are called 
the Conservative classes and the laboring classes is utterly 
unfounded ”; 3 and “ When the people are led by their 
natural leaders, and when, by their united influence, the 
-national institutions fulfil their original intention, the Tory 
party is triumphant .” 4 In fact, Disraeli’s acts and his ex¬ 
pression of opinions appeared to more than one writer as an 
attempt to get the support of the lower strata of working¬ 
men. The Whigs had allied themselves with the middle 
classes for the benefit not only of the country but of them¬ 
selves-; the Conservatives might now ally themselves with 

1 Vide supra , p. 237, the North British Review . 

* The Chancellor of the Exchequer in Scotland, p. 33. 

*Ibid., p. 35. 

i Ibid., p. 29. 


243 


243] DISRAELI'S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 

part of the working class for the benefit not only of the 
country, and of the working class, but of themselves, said 
Blackwoods . 1 The Spectator was of the opinion that Dis¬ 
raeli believed as he believed when he wrote Tancred 2 that 
the uneducated people would always have a leaning in favor 
of Tory ideas. 3 It liked to quote 4 a part of his speech at 
Merchant Taylors' in June, 1867, where he said that he 
went to household suffrage because he believed that while the 
enfranchisement of the elite of the working classes alone 
would destroy his party, the enfranchisement of the residuum 
with the elite would renew its sources of strength. 5 
Frazer's poked fun at him for “his discovery that the 
lower you descend in the social scale, the better materials 
do you find for a sound, safe, and Conservative system of 
representation.” 6 Lord Shaftesbury denied the theory that 
though the middle classes were not Conservative, if you 
went deeper you could get into a vein of gold, and encounter 
the presence of a highly Conservative feeling. 7 Other writ¬ 
ers, however, assured their readers that the experience of 
English boroughs, as they were, demonstrated that when- 

1 Blackwood's, December, 1866, p. 781. 

1 Tancred, possessed of a religious theme, when taken with Coningsby 
and Sybil, will give some idea of Disraeli’s religious, political and social 
opinions: an excellent chapter on Tancred is to be found in Monypenny 
and Buckle, vol. iii, chapter ii. 

•The Spectator, April 6, 1867. 

* Vide the Spectator, September 21, 1867, and September 28, 1867, 
p. 1076. 

5 The Spectator does not give the exact words used by Disraeli; for 
his speech, vide the Times, June 12, 1867. 

6 Frazer's, November, 1867, p. 661 et seq. One of its writers quoted 
the sentence: “ the right honorable Gentleman is not the first great 
Hebrew legislator who has led his people into the wilderness, and what 
is more, he resembles .Moses in this—he will never live to lead them 
out of it.” Ibid., p. 668. 

1 Vide Frazer’s, November, 1867, p. 663. 


244 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[244 

ever the majority in the constituency consisted of working¬ 
men, Tories were returned to Parliament; where the work¬ 
ingmen balanced other classes, and no more, Whigs were re¬ 
turned; wherever the working class happened to be in a 
minority, the boroughs returned Radicals. Blackwood’$ 
deduced from this even in January that a more liberal 
measure would probably be obtained from Lord Derby than 
any Lord Russell and Mr. Gladstone would venture to pro¬ 
pose. 

This idea of having a new kind of support for their party 
must have appealed to the Conservatives as a body. In 
1865 their attitude toward Reform was thus put by the 
Quarterly Review : “During the last five years .... they 
(Conservatives) have expressed themselves in opposition 
to all bare degradation of the suffrage, to all alterations in 
it that can in any degree* increase the democratic element in 
the Constitution, with a frankness which leaves no room 
for misconstruction/’ 1 Later it said in reference to the 
Conservative attitude toward Reform before 1867: “Any 
one who cares to refer to ‘ Hansard ’ will find that the danger 
of lowering the franchise even to £6 or £7, because it would 
give to the working classes a preponderating power, was 
one on which the Conservative speakers constantly dwelt.” 2 
But by 1867 a change had come. Mr. Henley, who had 
long since 3 declared in favor of household suffrage, was 
not now alone. “ By little and little,” says Blackwood’s, 
“ the truth has made its way into their (Tories’) convictions 
that there is far more of sympathy between the working¬ 
men and the aristocracy of England, than between either 
the aristocracy and what are called the middle classes, or 

1 Quarterly Review, July, 1865, p. 293. 

2 Ibid., October, 1867, “ The Conservative Surrender,” p. 538. 

3 The Spectator, June 29, 1867. 


245 


245] DISRAELI’S SUCCESS WITH REFORM IN 1867 

the middle classes and the workingmen.” 1 — It denied out 
and out that the Tories were “ mortified ” by the action taken 
by Disraeli. The party had indeed wisely followed its great 
leader: “ In 1867 the party has not rebelled, indeed it has 
scarcely murmured; it has answered in divisions to the 
calls of its summoners with a discipline worthy of a more 
honorable campaign; and the malcontents, who may be 
counted on the fingers, have been voices crying in the wilder¬ 
ness.” 2 The malcontents had attacked Disraeli in the 
Quarterly Review , 3 it is true, for passing a bill opposed to 
party principles but they were not representative of the 
party feeling. 

Disrael' had seen a great Reform bill through Parliament. 
The suggestive chapter title of Monypenny and Buckle— 
“ Disraeli’s Parliamentary Triumph ”—does not seem to be 
unfitting, provided it is remembered that the Parliamentary 
Triumph to Disraeli probably meant more than mere Parlia¬ 
mentary triumph—it signified also an anticipated success for 
his attempt to lead the People fi> cherish the Conservative 
party and those great institutions which that party held to 
be most truly British. 

1 Blackwood’s, July, 1867, p. 115. 

a The Edinburgh Review, October, 1867, p. 542. The Tory dissenters 
in 1867, unlike the forty Adullamites of 1866, were unable to destroy 
party effectiveness. 

9 Vide October, 1867, p. 547. Cranborne wrote for this magazine. 


CHAPTER VI 


Conclusion 

What would be the effect of Disraeli’s “ triumph ” upon 
the political fortunes of the Conservative party? Would 
the People, as he hoped, affirm that the monopoly of 
Liberalism in Reform had been broken and would they now 
have confidence in the ability of Toryism to gain for them 
rights and privileges? 

Disraeli had told a deputation in April, 1867, of his ef¬ 
forts for the People and of his expectations of their assis¬ 
tance : 

The bill was the restoration of the old Constitution of this 
country, it gave back to the working classes those rights and 
privileges of which they were deprived by the bill of 1832 
(loud cries of “ Hear, hear”), and it sought to break down 
the barriers which separated the people from their natural 
leaders. . . . When you go back to your homes, tell your 
friends and neighbors that the hour may arrive, and that per¬ 
haps shortly, when we must count upon the energy and public 
spirit of the people (loud cheers). If the appeal is made, let 
it not be made in vain (it shall not be) ; and if it is successful 
you will do much more than support a ministry, you will save 
a country (enthusiastic cheering). 1 

To the ministers, in a speech at the Mansion House banquet 
just before the close of the 1867 session, he declared that the 
Conservative party had “ resumed its natural functions in 
the government of the country: ” 

1 A lews of the World, April 14, 1867. 


246 


[246 


CONCLUSION 


247 


247] 

I have seen in my time several monopolies terminated, and re¬ 
cently I have seen the termination of the monopoly of Liberal¬ 
ism. Nor are we to be surprised when we see that certain 
persons who believed that they had an hereditary right, when¬ 
ever it was necessary, to renovate the institutions of their 
country, should be somewhat displeased that any other per¬ 
sons should presume to interfere with those changes which, I 
hope in the spirit of true patriotism, they believed the require¬ 
ments of the State rendered necessary. But I am sure that 
when the hubbub has subsided, when the shrieks and screams 
which were heard some time ago, and which have already sub¬ 
sided into sobs and sighs, shall be thoroughly appeased, nothing 
more terrible will be discovered to have occurred than that the 
Tory party has resumed its natural functions in the govern¬ 
ment of the country. For what is the Tory party unless it 
represents national feeling? If it does not represent national 
feeling Toryism is nothing. . . . The Tory party is nothing unless 
it represents and upholds the institutions of the country. ... I 
cannot help believing that, because my Lord Derby and his 
colleagues have taken a happy opportunity to enlarge the privi¬ 
leges of the people of England, we have not done anything but 
strengthen the institutions of the country, the essence of whose 
force is that they represent the interests and guard the rights 
of the people. 1 

Was Disraeli to have his hopes fulfilled? Had he really 
made the Conservative leaders the leaders of the people to 
such an extent that great political advantage would come 
to the Conservative party from the Act of 1867? 

The answer to the questions was not to be clearly shown 
from the results of the next election—that of the autumn 
of 1868. The question at issue at that election was to be 
Irish disestablishment. Disraeli might well complain in 
his address to the electors of the county of Buckingham, 2 
1 Cf. Monypenny and Buckle, vol. iv, pp. 553 et seq., and the Spectator, 
August 10, 1867. 
a In October, 1868. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1861 


248 


[248 


that although his party had settled the question of Parlia¬ 
mentary Reform, had carried on foreign affairs successfully, 
especially in the handling of Abyssinia, 1 and had strength¬ 
ened the army and navy, etc., public verdict would not be 
given on such accomplishments but rather on a “ proposal 
for the dissolution of the union between Church and State,” 
“brought forward by the Opposition. 2 Not the achievements 
of the past but the problems of the present and future were 
to receive the attention of the voters. 

The state of Ireland, was, indeed, the great question of 
the day. For “ while Parliament did many things in 1868, 
it thought only of one thing: Ireland, always Ireland.” 3 
Fenian activity in 1866 and 1867 causing a continuous sus¬ 
pension of the habeas corpus act in Ireland, Fenian attacks 
in England in 1867, 4 had forced 5 Irish affairs into pro¬ 
minence, and made them the paramount issue in domestic 
politics. In March, 1868, an Irish member moved that the 
House of Commons should resolve itself into a committee 
for considering the state of Ireland. He argued that Eng¬ 
land should either govern Ireland justly, or let her govern 
herself. On the question involved the Liberals once more 
became united. Gladstone, strongly supported by Lowe of 


1 British forces were sent into Abyssinia in the winter of 1867-68 
to release British subjects held captive by the native ruler. The success 
of the expedition led Disraeli to declare that the standard of St. George 
had been hoisted on the mountains of Rasselas. For details on the 
Abyssinian War vide Walpole, History of Twenty-live Years, vol. ii r 
pp. 267-286. 

’The Times, October 3, 1868. 

3 Herbert Paul, A History of Modern England, vol. iii, p. 130. 

4 For the attempt on Chester, vide Sidney Low and L. C. Sanders, 
The Political History of England (edited by William Hunt and R. L. 
Poole), vol. xii, p. 228; for the Manchester affair and the attempt on 
Clerkenwell jail, vide pp. 229-230. 

h Ibid., p. 219. 


CONCLUSION 


249] 


249 


the Adullamites and Bright of the Radicals, declared that 
the Irish Church as an establishment must cease, and brought 
forward resolutions to that effect. The case had to be con¬ 
sidered in committee, but when the motion to go into com¬ 
mittee was put, Lord Stanley 1 of the Government pro¬ 
posed an amendment which would have left the question for 
the next House of Commons to consider. Many of the 
Conservatives, however, did not like Stanley’s policy of de¬ 
lay; they stood for a policy of no surrender. Disraeli him¬ 
self was not able to defend the Government in the manner 
expected of him by his followers 2 so that Lord Stanley’s 
amendment was defeated by a majority of sixty, and the 
main question, that the House should resolve itself into a! 
committee, was carried by a majority of fifty-six. And after 
the Easter recess, Gladstone’s resolution—“ That it is neces¬ 
sary that the Established Church of Ireland should cease to 
exist as an establishment, due regard being had to all per¬ 
sonal interests and to all individual rights of property ”— 
was passed. Yet Disraeli who' since the retirement of Derby 
in February, 1868, had been the he^d of the Conservative 
party, did not resign or dissolve at once in spite of these de¬ 
feats. His work with regard to Reform had not been com¬ 
pleted. Bills dealing with Scotland and Ireland 3 had not 
yet been passed and reports of boundary commissioners 4 
had not been considered. Had Parliament been dissolved, 
appeal must have been made to an obsolete constituency. 
Hence the appeal to 1 the people had to be postponed for some 
time. Before an election was held, Gladstone continued to« 
press his advantage by having the House pass other resolu- 


1 Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. 

2 Walpole, History of Twenty-five Years, vol. ii, p. 327. 

3 Cf. infra, pp. 258-60. 

4 For the recommendations of the commissioners and the boundary bill 
(the 31 and 32 Viet., c. 46), vide Annual Register, 1868, pp. 30 - 37 * 


250 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[250 

tions not favored by the Conservatives. The Lords, how¬ 
ever, refused to follow his dictations. Thus stood affairs 
when Parliament was dissolved by proclamation on the 
eleventh of November, 1868. The country was asked to 
give its opinion upon the disestablishment and the disen- 
dowment of the Irish church. 

Naturally, however, both sides tried to gain popular sup¬ 
port, not only by the appeal to the Irish question but also 
by claims to the authorship of the Reform bill of 1867. 
Disraeli told his constituents at Buckinghamshire how the 
Conservatives had passed the bill. 1 Gladstone, on the other 
hand, in his address to the electors of South-West Lanca¬ 
shire, spoke of the bill “ introduced by the Government, but 
amended and almost transformed by the Opposition.” 2 
At Liverpool he spent much time describing the part suc¬ 
cessfully played by the Liberals in Reform. 3 And not 
only by the leaders but by speakers 4 less noted, by maga¬ 
zines, by newspapers, the question was debated. Blackwood’s 
had great hopes and anticipations that the newly-created 
voters would prove worthy of a boon which a Conservative 
Government had bestowed upon them. These newly-created 
voters owed all to the Conservatives: 

And now, in order that the workingmen may be able to look 
after their own interests, the Tories have received them within 
the pale of the Constitution, to an extent which their rivals 
never dreamed of; and to which, when the Reform Bill of 
1867 was brought forward, Mr. Gladstone and his friends 
offered all the opposition in their power. 5 

1 Speech is to be found in the Times, November 20, 1868. 

* Vide the Times, October 10, 1868. 

% Vide the Times, October 15, 1868. 

4 Some speeches are given in Blackwood’s, November, 1868, pp. 637 
et seq.; vide also the Times. 

5 Blackwood’s, November, 1868, pp. 622 et seq. 


CONCLUSION 


2 S 1 1 


251 


To the Spectator, on the other hand, Mr. Gladstone might 
well claim confidence by what he had done to secure for the 
nation at large a wide and substantial representation in the 
new Parliament: 


It was in that cause ( i . e., Reform) that he sacrificed office, 
and the country now knows that it was really that sacrifice of 
office which secured reform. ... It was Mr. Gladstone who, 
amidst a storm of disapproval from Conservative Liberals and 
Liberal Conservatives, no less than the Tories, threw over the 
“ wise ” Palmerstonian policy of “ Rest and be thankful,” and 
insisted on redeeming the repeatedly broken promises of Re¬ 
form. It was Mr. Gladstone who roused the enthusiasm of 
the working classes by asserting, in reply to the scornful taunts 
of the superfine Conservatives, that the working classes are 
“our own flesh and blood,” and have a right to expect trust 
rather than dread. It was Mr. Gladstone, who, after parrying 
the unwearied thrusts of the Opposition for months, at last 
saw that he would do more for Reform by resignation than 
by perseverance in a measure so ruthlessly contested in every 
detail. It was Mr. Gladstone who obliged the Tory Ministry 
to abandon every one of their reactionary proposals, and to 
widen their mock reform into a real (one) by conceding nine 
out of the ten conditions which he dictated. . . . Mr. Glad¬ 
stone said in April, 1866, “ We stand or fall by this Bill, as 
has been declared by my noble friend; we stand with it now; 
we may fall with it a short time hence; and if we do, we 
shall rise with it hereafter.” To the spirit, if not to the letter, 
that prophecy is about to be fulfilled. The new Constituencies 
are about to mark whom they regard as the true author of the 
great reform by using their new privileges for the very first 
time to realize that “ hereafter ”. What Mr. Disraeli resisted 
vehemently and even manfully in 1866, what he conceded con¬ 
trary to his declared principles under compulsion and with 
mischievous qualifications in 1867, the people cannot profess to 
thank him for, with full hearts or true confidence in 1868. 1 

1 The Spectator, October 17, 1868, p. 1209. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


252 


[252 


The election was favorable to the Liberals. Gladstone’s 
party won in Scotland, Ireland and in the boroughs of 
South Britain. 1 In the English counties the Conservatives 
were successful. They also' could point out that Lancashire 
went for them 2 even to 1 the extent of rejecting Gladstone 
himself, 3 and comfort themselves with the phrase—“ What 
Lancashire thinks to-day, all England thinks tomorrow.” 4 
Another statement which solaced them was the announce¬ 
ment that only one hundred and forty Tory members had 
been returned after 1832 as compared with about two hun¬ 
dred and seventy-five after 1867. Many of their members, 
too, represented the most powerful constituencies of the 
kingdom; and not the small boroughs. 5 The wisdom of 
Derby and Disraeli had been established, it was said, for 
had the Liberals passed a £7 bill, the Conservative party 
would have been routed as it was routed after 1832. Black¬ 
wood’s appeared to> be quite cheerful over the situation: 


There can be no doubt that the extension of the franchise has 
invigorated Conservatism. The Tory party has voluntarily 
widened its borders, and the experience of the elections demon¬ 
strates, as its leaders had believed, that it flourishes most vig¬ 
orously when “ broad-based upon the people’s will.” . . . Two 
hundred and seventy-six Tory Gentlemen have been returned 
to Parliament by the English democracy. . . . All men can see 

1 The Spectator, December 5, 1868, p. 1421, gives data. 

8 Blackwood's, January, 1869, p. 119; the Spectator, November 21, 
1868, p. 1361—quotes as causes that either the majority of the new 
voters were generally Conservative, or they were specially anti-Catholic 
and anti-Irish, or they were not free voters at all, but under the in¬ 
fluence of their employers. 

3 The Spectator, November 28, p. 1392, gives reasons for this. 

*Cf. Blackwood's, January, 1869, p. 130. 

6 Conservatives said that the Liberals had won through small boroughs. 
Vide refutation of the Times, December 1, 1868 (quoting Liverpool 
Albion ). 


CONCLUSION 


253] 


253 


that the Tory party is still intact; but we are convinced that 
an examination of the electoral returns will show that it is at 
the present moment substantially more powerful than it has 
been at any time since 1846. 1 


The Liberals on their part could point out that they had a 
majority of over a hundred. 2 Some of their organs were 
unable to- resist the temptation to twit opponents: 


This at least, it should seem, is clear, that as far as electioneer¬ 
ing results go, the course which Mr. Disraeli has taken is as 
damaging to the Conservatives as any course could possibly 
have been. The majority is enormous in mere numbers, ex¬ 
ceeding anything in recent history except that of the Parlia¬ 
ment which met after the first Reform Act. This is hard 
enough, considering the kind of promises by which the poor 
squires were induced to follow their leaders. Lord Derby laid 
it down that the great object of his Reform policy was “to 
take such measures as should turn his minority into a major¬ 
ity.” Mr. Disraeli told them that he had resisted the line of 
£7, and accepted household suffrage, “ because that measure 
would not injure the Conservative party.” By promises such 
as these, scattered still more lavishly in private, the Conserva¬ 
tive members, up to their ears in anti-democratic pledges, 
voted enthusiastically for the platform of the most extreme 
Reformers in the House. The “ dodge ” has ridiculously 
failed. . . . To a sacrifice of reputation, or a forgetfulness of 
scruple, a portion at least of the Conservative party might 
possibly have been reconciled, if it would have enabled them 
to “ dish the Whigs.” But to have gone through all this dirt 
in order to make their political condition exactly twice as bad 


1 Blackwood's, January, 1869, pp. 112 and 113. 

*In the Journal of the Statistical Society of London, vol. xxxii, pp. 
102-113, is to be found collected from the newspapers of the two leading 
political parties (J Daily News and Standard ) facts relating to the general 
election of 1868. The editor considered it desirable to preserve these 
statements, as exhibiting the manner in which the same class of facts 
was regarded by contemporaries of opposite politics. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


254 


[254 


as it was before must be irritating. ... To have changed a 
majority of sixty into a majority of a hundred; to have 
changed their opponents from a rabble into a disciplined host; 
and to have made the Liberals into Radicals, is about the net 
result to the Conservatives of the Conservative strategy of 
1867. 1 


As a matter of fact, Disraeli thought it best to resign at 
once. He had believed that the country would not sanction! 
the disestablishment of the Church, and had advised an ap¬ 
peal to the new constituencies. 2 The appeal had not been 
successful. Gladstone, with the prospect of a general elec¬ 
tion, says Kebbel, 3 had played the trump card (i. e. } Irish 
Church Resolution). He knew well enough, the writer con¬ 
tinues, 4 * that a ministerial majority would have been re¬ 
turned, had the appeal to the people been on the merits of the 
Reform bill of 1867. It must be confessed, however, 
that Gladstone’s attack on the Irish Church does not appear 
to a writer like Mr. Trevelyan as the attempt of a politician 
to catch votes. 6 To him it seems that the Liberal leader 
could not even be sure that the question would not finally 
and definitely break up a party already split into many sec¬ 
tions. 

Yet if the result of the election of 1868 was not the result 
hoped for by Disraeli, his idea of establishing the Conserva¬ 
tive party on a national and popular basis, was destined to> 
be successful, to a degree at least, in the long run. One 
authority has pointed out how events have largely justified 
Disraeli’s policy: 


1 Saturday Review, November 28, 1868, pp. 702-703. 

* Vide the Spectator, December 5, 1868. 

•Kebbel, Lord Beaconsdeld and Other Tory Memories, p. 41. 

4 Ibid . 

6 Trevelyan, Life of John Bright, p. 388. 


CONCLUSION 


255] 


255 


The constituency which the Reform Act of 1867 created, and 
which was logically completed by the extension of household 
franchise to the counties in 1884, gave the Conservative party, 
either alone or in alliance with the Unionist Liberals, major¬ 
ities at four General Elections—1874, 1886, 1895, and 1900; 
insuring a fair spell of power to Disraeli himself, and a much 
longer tenure, by one of the caprices of fortune, to the states¬ 
man who worked his hardest against Disraeli to prevent that 
constituency from coming into being—Lord Salisbury. The 
existence, in considerable numbers, of the Conservative work¬ 
ing man, whom it was the fashion of the Liberals of the 
’sixties to treat as a myth, has been shown over and over 
again by the immense polls cast for the party in the largest 
urban constituencies. 1 


Also Mr. Charles Seymour points out 2 that if the elections 
from 1867 to 1884 are taken as a whole, the effect of the 
bill of 1867 in so far as it altered the strength o*f parties was 
beneficial to the Conservatives. Their gain was most 
marked in the counties where the new voters became their 
enthusiastic supporters. In the agricultural divisions they 
took seventy-seven per cent of the county seats after 1867 
in contrast to sixty-seven per cent carried before the passage 
of the Reform bill. It had been supposed, however, that 
those newly enfranchised would vote much as the £50 ten¬ 
ants had voted in this type of division. Much more strik¬ 
ing was their gain in the industrial counties where the Liber¬ 
als, owing to the numerical superiority of the urban ele¬ 
ments over the tenant farmers, had been accustomed to a 
slight majority of seats. But the £12 electors, perhaps feel¬ 
ing that the Liberals were no longer bent on middle-class 
legislation, gave to the Conservatives sixty-six per cent of 
the seats in such divisions. 

1 Monypenny and Buckle, vol. iv, p. 564. 

> Charles Seymour, Electoral Reform in England and Wales (New 
Haven, 1915), PP- 300-310. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


256 


[256 


In the boroughs the relative strength of the parties was 
not changed by the Act of 1867: the Liberals still carried 
as before, about sixty per cent of the seats. An analysis of 
(the effect of the Act upon; different types of boroughs, 
Mr. Seymour remarks, is a difficult task inasmuch as clas¬ 
sification into types is quite artificial and, at times, almost im¬ 
possible owing to the effect of corruption, the influence of 
the “tradition or sentiment of the community” and the 
activity of the controlling landlord who unlike the county 
landlord might belong to either party. But in the metropo¬ 
lis and in that type of borough which may be designated as 
the smaller centers of industry the Conservatives made im¬ 
portant gains. In the metropolis they carried thirty-four 
per cent of the seats following 1867 in contrast to five per 
cent after 1832, and in important industrial towns they took 
over thirty-four per cent of the seats after 1867 i n contrast 
to twenty-five per cent after 1832. It appeared that Dis¬ 
raeli had not appealed in vain to the working class. How¬ 
ever, the Conservatives made no gain and even suffered los¬ 
ses in other types of boroughs. In the very great industrial 
towns the Liberals held their own. In fifty or more of the 
smallest boroughs they proved themselves to< be as strong as 
formerly. They gained slightly in the boroughs of moder¬ 
ate size—the cathedral cities and county towns—and to a 
greater degree in the boroughs having a population from ten 
to twenty thousand 1 and in the boroughs of such territorial 
extent that they represented interests of a rural and agricul¬ 
tural character. 2 

The redistribution bill which was quite limited in charac- 


1 Mr. Seymour thinks that the Liberals may have been influenced to 
retain boroughs of this type in the redistribution of 1885 because of their 
value to the Liberal cause. Vide Electoral Reform in England and 
Wales, p. 308. 

“The results of the elections in this type of borough would lead the 
Liberals to be willing to try the household franchise in the counties. 


CONCLUSION 


25 7 ] 


257 


ter, favored the Conservatives very slightly, if, indeed, it 
may be said to have changed the relative strength of the 
parties at all. 1 Hence the Act of 1867 in its total effect 
considerably strengthened the Conservative cause chiefly by 
the gain of county seats. Moreover, it became clear as elec¬ 
tion succeeded election “ that the Conservatives might with¬ 
out discouragement look to the workmen in the industrial 
towns, aud that the Liberals had nothing to hope from the 
yeomen farmers.” 2 

Thus far the result of the passing of the 1867 Act upon 
the fortunes of the Conservative party has been the chief 
matter of consideration. What, on the other hand,—it 
may be asked—was the result of the passage of that Act upon 
the position of workingmen in the state? So numerous, 
indeed, were the new householders that the working class 
was in a clear majority. A return of 1869 shows that 
especially in the large industrial towns the electors entitled 
to vote as householders far outnumbered the electors entitled 
to vote as £10 occupiers. 3 Birmingham with 42,880 as the 
total number of electors on the register had 35,172 electors 
entitled to vote as householders and 7,708 electors entitled 
to vote as £10 occupiers; Blackburn with a total of 9,71 2 
electors on the register had 7,764 householders and 1,948 
£10 occupiers ; Bolton with a total of 12,745 had 9,880 
householders and 2,861 £10 occupiers ; Manchester with a 
total of 48,^56 had 22,897 householders and 25,331 £10 
occupiers; Leeds had 37,470 householders and 9,443 £10 
occupiers; Preston, 11,021 and 2,442, and Sheffield, 19,928 
and 10,027. On the other hand, the new electors in the 
metropolis where the lodger franchise was not as effective as 


1 Vide Seymour, pp. 344 and 345. 

* Ibid., p. 310. 

3 Accounts and Papers , 1868-1869, 1 ( 4 I 9 ), J° 9 - 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


258 


[> 5 & 


its: supporters had supposed it would be, were represented 
by a gain of only sixty-six per cent, in Liverpool by a gain 
of less than ninety per cent and in some of the smaller 
boroughs by a very slight increase. 1 Moreover, the pro¬ 
portion of electors to' population in the boroughs became 
equalized so that noi longer did the manufacturing towns 
have the low ratio' of voters which prevailed before 1867. 2 

But the second Reform Act in spite of those democratic 
tendencies displayed by the strengthening of the position of 
the workingmen in the boroughs of England and Wales left 
problems to democratic advance in the future. Very pres¬ 
sing was the question of Parliamentary Reform for Scot¬ 
land and Ireland. Effective changes in electoral registra¬ 
tion, the curbing of bribery at elections, a radical redistribu¬ 
tion of seats, the introduction of a democratic suffrage in 
the counties, were tasks to be completed before England 
could be said to be truly democratic. 

Reform measures for Scotland and Ireland were soon 
taken up. A Reform' bill for Scotland was introduced in 
1867, but, for want of time, was postponed until the follow¬ 
ing year when a measure was introduced by the Lord Ad¬ 
vocate for Scotland. This measure as it concerned the fran¬ 
chise was based on the English act. 3 In the boroughs the 
franchise was to be extended to all householders rated and 
paying rates; in the counties there was to be an ownership 
franchise of £5 clear annual value, and an occupation fran¬ 
chise of £i2. 4 According to the distribution clauses seven 
new members were to be given to Scotland, which would be 
an addition to the aggregate numbers of the House. It 


1 Seymour, pp. 281-283. 

* For data, vide Seymour, pp. 289 et seq. 

8 A clear account is to be found in the Annual Register, 1868, pp. 18-24, 

4 Later fixed at ^14. 


CONCLUSION 


259] 


259 


was in this last point that the Government again found 
itself defeated. Many were the protests against adding to 
the number o>f members of the House. When the measure 
was taken up in committee a motion was made “ That it be an 
instruction to the committee that, instead of adding to the 
numbers of the house, they have power to disfranchise 
boroughs in England having by the census returns of 1861 
less than 5000 inhabitants.” Disraeli, retaining his opinions 
that the best way to give the entitled additional representa¬ 
tion was by increasing the number of members of the House, 
finally spoke in favor of an alternate motion, that instead of 
disfranchising boroughs, the committee have instructions to 
take one member from each of those boroughs in England 
which in 1861 had less than 12,000 inhabitants. But in spite 
of Disraeli the first motion was carried and the Government 
had to accept the situation. On one other important amend¬ 
ment the Government was defeated: this was a motion pro¬ 
posing to get rid altogether of the rate-paying qualification 
in Scotland by omitting the words making the payment 
of rates a necessary condition of the franchise. 1 When the 
defeat came, Disraeli asked for time to consider the future 
course of the Government, but finally accepted this amend¬ 
ment also. With some minor changes the bill became law. 2 

Less difficulty was met in the Irish Reform bill. 31 It was 
proposed with regard to Ireland to make no change in the 
occupation franchise in counties which had been, fixed at 
£12 but to reduce the borough franchise from £8 to £4 and 


x But subsequently the committee agreed that no man should be en¬ 
titled to be registered as a voter, “ Who shall have been exempted from 
assessment or payment of poor rates on the ground of inability to pay 
. . . or who shall have failed to pay ... all poor rates (if any) that 
have become payable by him.” Cf. Hansard, vol. cxcii, p. 842. 

* As the 31 and 32 Viet., c. 48. 

•For an account of this, vide Annual Register, 1868, pp. 24-30. 


2 6 o the ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [ 2 6o 

to extend the lodger franchise to Ireland on the same con¬ 
ditions. as to England. Inasmuch as the landlord was to- 
pay the poor rates of all houses below £4, only those rated 
for the poor as in England, would obtain the franchise. A 
redistribution scheme proposed met with so little favor on 
either side of the House, that Disraeli withdrew that part 
of the measure. And, although the bill was passed 1 with¬ 
out causing the ministry the embarrassment met with dur¬ 
ing the passing of the Reform bill for Scotland, much dis¬ 
satisfaction was expressed. It was declared that the Irish 
people would refuse to accept this as anything like an ade¬ 
quate measure of Reform for Ireland; that the borough 
franchise was fixed at an unfair figure; that the county 
franchise was not reduced below the figure at which it was 
placed eighteen years ago* and was in effect the equivalent 
of a £30 county rating in England; and that by the bill only 
9000 would be added to the total number of voters in Ire¬ 
land, whereas if the English system were acted on in respect 
to' Ireland some 20,000 ought to be added to' the Irish con¬ 
stituencies. 

Another question connected with Parliamentary repre¬ 
sentation and needing change was the registration system. 
The Act of 1867 made an already complex system of re¬ 
gistration still more complex: the new franchises added to 
those previously in effect, caused more labor for the over¬ 
seers who made up the lists of voters, and the abolition of 
composition and the requirement of “ personal payment ” 
of rates led to confusion and dissatisfaction. Under the 
old system many landlords had included the rate in the rent. 
Now the occupiers had to pay the rates themselves in addi¬ 
tion to the rent which the landlord did not lower. A “ fine ” 
had been imposed after all by the franchise as had been pre¬ 
dicted by certain members of Parliament during the de- 

Hhe 31 and 32 Viet., c. 49. 


CONCLUSION 


261 


261] 

bates on Reform. The situation became such that Lord 
Henley declared to Parliament that “ the feeling among the 
small occupiers in the towns where the change from com¬ 
pounding to non-compounding was made was one of the 
most serious dissatisfaction.” 1 The Conservatives who* 
had debated for “ personal payment ” of rates did nothing 
notwithstanding the unpopularity of the requirement, but 
the Liberals in 1869 passed legislation for composition. 3 
The compound occupiers, however, were to have their names 
on the electoral lists. 

Other forces causing disfranchisement had operated be¬ 
fore 1867 and still persisted, as Mr. Seymour points out. 3 
The overseers because of ignorance, carelessness, inefficiency 
or political bias drew up unsatisfactory lists. Double en¬ 
tries sometimes created fagot votes in the counties. More 
often complaint was made that the registration system; dis¬ 
qualified. For instance, red tape made the lodger fran¬ 
chise almost entirely ineffective. 4 Objections by the whole¬ 
sale, moreover, were made by election managers to the qualifi¬ 
cations of those electors of opposing party creed. The pro¬ 
tested voters were often unwilling or unable to sustain their 
votes by appearing in the revision; courts with the result 
that the active and unscrupulous manager might get rid of a 
hostile plurality. The lawyer of the party association was 
often in a position to uphold an elector’s claim but would be 
fairly sure to reap the benefit of the vote for his party. 5 

1 Hansard, vol. cxc, p. 438. 

* 32 and 33 Viet., c. 41. 

’Seymour, chapter xii, gives a clear account of the various restrictions 
which the system of registration put upon the franchise. 

4 Special claims had to be made in the revising courts which were open 
only in the daytime. 

6 If the objection proved to be frivolous or vexatious the claimant 
might get costs according to an existing law. The law was not very 
effective, however. 


262 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [262 

To do< away with these and similar abuses a committee was 
appointed in 1868 to investigate registration conditions. 
Their suggestions, embodied in a bill introduced in 1871, 
met with opposition to change, which was too strong to 
permit any but slight reform until 1878. The Act of 1878 1 
concerned with boroughs and the Act of 1885 2 dealing with 
the counties attempted to make the preliminary lists free 
from errors. The relieving officials of the poor, the regis¬ 
trars of births and deaths were to give necessary data to the 
overseers. The latter officials were to enter the names of 
compound householders in the rate book and thence place 
them on the electoral register; the red tape involved in the 
lodger’s franchise was modified and a curb was put on the 
system of wholesale objections. Although not radical the 
legislation helped to make the 1 system work fairly smoothly 
after 1885. 3 

Corrupt practices did more to hinder democratic advance 
than did the abuses of the registration system just men¬ 
tioned. An attempt made to deal with the situation in 
1854, had not been really effective. It was felt that even 
with the greater number of electors after 1867 bribery 
would continue as a problem. To overcome existing abuses 
a tribunal more free from party spirit than the committee 
chosen by lot in the House of Commons would be needed to 
test the validity of elections, some method of combating in¬ 
timidation in elections must be found, and direct bribery 
must be strictly dealt with by law. Acts of 1868, 1872, and 
1883 accomplished such results that political democracy was 
greatly advanced. By the act of 1868 4 judges selected 

1 41 and 42 Viet., c. 26. 

3 48 and 49 Viet., c. 15. 

3 For defects of the system, vide Seymour, pp. 381 and 382. 

4 31 and 32 Viet., c. 125. 


CONCLUSION 


263 ] 


263 


from the judges of superior courts were to try the petitions 
alleging that elections were void because of the misconduct 
of the successful candidates. They were to decide on the 
facts and on the law and had the power to report on the pre¬ 
valence of bribery in the inculpated constituencies. In con¬ 
trast to the committees of the House of Commons the judges 
performed their duties so impartially that charges of party 
bias have been made infrequently and the reform has been 
spoken of as a noteworthy landmark in political history. 1 
By passing the Ballot Act of 1872 2 Parliament granted one 
of the requirements made by the speakers of the Reform- 
League in 1866 and 1867. It was pointed out that intimida¬ 
tion of the working class in their exercise of the franchise 
could best be coped with through the adoption of secret vot¬ 
ing. The Liberal Government showed itself in favor of 
the change in the method of conducting elections in 1870, 
had a bill passed through the Commons in 1871/* and finally 
was able to enact the measure in 1872. The Act did pro¬ 
tect the elector from intimidation. 4 But bribery was still 
practiced even when it could not be known whether the 
bribed voter had fulfilled his bargain. Moreover, general 
entertainments and picnics, general treating at public houses, 
payment of traveling expenses, as practiced by the parties in 
the ’seventies and early ’eighties, may be called indirect 
bribery. Such forms of bribery because of their effective¬ 
ness were sure to continue so long as election expenses were 
not more carefully checked up. The measure passed to 
curb the abuses—the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Preven- 


1 Spencer Walpole, The History of Twenty-five Years, vol. ii, p. 204. 
■35 and 36 Viet., c. 33. 

•The bill was sent to the Lords so late in the session that they refused 
to consider it. 

4 iSir Thomas Erskine May and Francis Holland, The Constitutional 
History of England, 3 vols. (London, 1912), vol. iii, pp. 26 and 27. 


264 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [264 

tion Act 1 —limited, therefore, the expenses of elections and 
the use to which money might be put. 2 The candidate was 
not to have personal expenses amounting to more than £100. 
The returning officers were allowed maximum's fixed ac¬ 
cording to the size of constituencies. Voters might no 
longer be brought to the polls in hired vehicles. One author¬ 
ized agent and no paid canvassers were permitted to the 
candidate. Treating, defined as the giving, or paying the 
expense of giving, any meat, drink, entertainment, or provi¬ 
sion with the object of corruptly influencing voters, was for¬ 
bidden to all. Undue influence, defined as the making use 
or threatening to make use, of any force, violence, or re¬ 
straint, or inflicting, or threatening to inflict any temporal 
or spiritual injury to any person in order to* influence his 
vote, was likewise an offence. Corrupt practices were 
punishable by imprisonment with hard labor or by a fine 
of £200. A candidate found to' have been knowingly guilty 
of breaking any of the regulations was to be excluded from 
representing the constituency forever and from sitting in 
Parliament for seven years. That the Act was successful 
in controlling expenses is seen from the fact that the election 
by 3,000,000 electors in 1880 cost £3,000,000 whereas the 
election by 5,670,000 electors in 1885 cost but £780,000.* 
But seats were still so costly as to limit the choice of can¬ 
didates. Although the various acts, against corrupt prac¬ 
tices did not entirely stop bribery, complaints after the year 
1883 were comparatively rare. 

The question of further extension of the suffrage in coun¬ 
ties and of radical redistribution was brought forward 
soon after 1867. The Act of that year was not regarded 

*46 and 47 Viet., c. 51. 

* May and Holland, vol. iii, pp. 32 and 33. 

* May and Holland, vol. iii, p. 33. 


CONCLUSION 


265 ] 


265 


as having the mark of finality. In one sense the measure 
was undemocratic: it actually increased the difference be¬ 
tween the proportion of electors in counties and boroughs. 
When it is considered that after 1867 only one man in four¬ 
teen was an elector in the counties in contrast to one man 
in seven in the boroughs, 1 that the voting increase as a re¬ 
sult of the second Reform Act was only forty per cent in 
the counties in contrast to one hundred and forty-five per 
cent in the boroughs and that the boroughs had one and a 
half as many electors as the counties in spite of a population 
smaller by two millions, 2 that the property qualification 
dating to 1430 was the most important franchise in the coun¬ 
ties, claim might well be made that the miners and the artis^ 
ans and small tradesmen of the towns not to mention the 
agricultural laborers were being unjustly discriminated 
against simply because they lived on the wrong side of an 
imaginary line. Hence Mr. Trevelyan 3 in 1872, 1873 
and 1874 brought before the House of Commons either by 
resolution or bill his opinion that the “ householders outside 
the boundary of Parliamentary boroughs” should be in pos¬ 
session of the franchise. But the Liberals thought that the 
time had hardly come for a new extension of the suffrage, 
and Disraeli as Prime Minister in 1874 was opposed to ex¬ 
tension without a large measure of redistribution. In 1875 
Lord Hartington of the Opposition also pointed out that 
serious anomalies would be created by any new bill unless 
redistribution were included in the measure. 

In fact, redistribution measures in 1867 and 1868 had 
been slight in character. Agricultural counties still upheld 


1 Before 1867 the proportion had been one man in twenty-one an 
elector in the counties and one in sixteen in the boroughs. Vide 
Seymour, p. 287. 

* Ibid., p. 295. 

8 George Otto Trevelyan was a Liberal. 


266 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [ 2 66 

the power of the landowners as formerly. Slight gains had 
been made by the manufacturing groups of the Midlands 
and Northwest, it is true, but even with this gain the manu¬ 
facturing county divisions as against the agricultural divi¬ 
sions were represented, in proportion to their population, 
by far too few members. The proportion of seats to popu¬ 
lation in the South-Midlands was two and a half that of the 
Northwest. 1 And with the growth of the industrial divi¬ 
sions after 1868 the anomalies became more striking. 
Should 1,000,000 new voters be created, Disraeli declared, 
there would be necessity for a large measure of redistribu¬ 
tion and a system of equal electoral districts. 

Mr. Trevelyan in 1876 and 1877 tried, therefore, to meet 
objections by introducing resolutions in favor of redistribu¬ 
tion. But the Prime Minister contended that the increase in 
the number of voters in the counties would call for such 
redistribution as to cause the dissolution of the existing 
borough constituency and the destruction of the variety of 
character derived by the House from the municipal com¬ 
munities, 2 Hence the resolutions were defeated in 1876 
and 1877. 

In the meantime, the public was showing interest in the 
question of Reform. The Reform League which had 
gone out of existence in 1869 was revived in 1876. John 
Bright spoke at great public meetings and Gladstone wrote 
in favor of a further extension of the suffrage. Yet noth¬ 
ing was accomplished before the Liberal victory in the 
general election of 1880. By 1884 Gladstone was ready to 
deal with the franchise. The bill which he championed 
gave to the rural classes such privileges of voting as were 

1 Seymour, pp. 345 and 346. 

3 May and Holland, vol. iii, p. 30. 


CONCLUSION 


267] 


267 


enjoyed by the workingmen in the boroughs. 1 Exten¬ 
sion to the counties of household and lodger franchises 
which had prevailed in the boroughs since 1867 and a ser¬ 
vice franchise for those who occupied houses or separate 
rooms by virtue of their employment, caused an increase 
of two million to the number of electors of the United 
Kingdom. The Liberals acknowledged the necessity of a 
redistribution scheme but did not plan to present it until the 
following year. It was to this arrangement 2 that the Con¬ 
servatives gave opposition, as they had done in 1866. After 
some difficulty the bill passed the House of Commons only 
to be rejected by the House of Lords. Conservatives, 
feeling that in case of a dissolution before redistribution, 
Radical influence would become paramount and would 
dictate such a redistribution bill that the Conservative party 
would long be out of control and landed interests would suf¬ 
fer, demanded a complete bill- The ministers did not give 
way, agricultural laborers paraded for their rights, and 
threats of ending or mending the House of Lords began to* 
be heard. That body, it was supposed, was using its de¬ 
mands as a means to escape from passing the bill. Com¬ 
promises, however, soon were mentioned, and the passage of 
the bill became assured when the leaders, brought together in 
private conferences partly through the influence of the 
Queen, made an agreement as to the coming redistribu¬ 
tion. The redistribution bill soon followed. Boroughs! 
having a population less than 15,000 were merged in the 
counties and boroughs under 50,000 which had been re¬ 
turning two' members now were allowed one. 


1 Vide Paul, op. cit., vol. iv, pp. 326-336. 

1 Also to the inclusion of Ireland in the scheme, where the electorate 
was increased from 200,000 to 700,000 voters. It was said that forty 
per cent of the new electors were illiterate and would be a power for 
Parnell. 


268 THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 [268 

Of the seats liberated for distribution in England and 
Wales almost an equal number was given to the counties and 
the boroughs. Boroughs and county members now re¬ 
presented approximately the same population and in coun¬ 
ties, at least, the ratio of seats to population was for the 
most part, constant. 1 Industrial county divisions and 
manufacturing towns of the North had been granted their 
full proportion of representatives and the Southwest had 
lost, therefore, a considerable number of seats. It was 
determined that single-member districts should be made in 
the new constituencies and in the larger towns so that minor¬ 
ities which were majorities in certain sections might obtain 
representation. For the purpose of giving additional re¬ 
presentation to 1 Scotland twelve more members were added 
to the House. Thus by 1885 England was approaching 2 
manhood suffrage, although not until 1918 was there fur¬ 
ther lowering of qualifications and the granting of woman 
suffrage. 

But did the fact that the workingman had obtained the 
franchise really make better his position in the state? Did 
all those reforms which the Reform speakers were wont to 
talk about, come as expected, with the vote ? As a matter 
of fact, the welfare of the workingman did not immediately 
occupy the attention of the parties after 1867, to the extent 
predicted; nor did the workingmen themselves have much 
success in obtaining representation in the House. Indeed, 
they did not put forth much effort, at least, in the beginning, 
to return members of their class; they voted, some of the 
papers proudly proclaimed, like good Englishmen. The 
Spectator was one paper, however, which preached against 

1 For anomalies in the representation of boroughs vide Seymour, pp. 
515 et seq. 

a Bachelors living with parents, domestic servants, and those who did 
not meet residence qualifications were excluded. 


CONCLUSION 


269] 


269 


this lack of representation of the working classes, for no¬ 
where in 1868 were workmen returned and in scarcely a 
borough could they be said to have selected separately the 
representative. Not until 1874 did trade union leaders try 
a general campaign for direct representation in Parliament. 1 
And although even then no success resulted when Labor 
candidates ran without support from the other parties, aid 
from the official Liberals enabled Mr. Alexander Macdonald 
and Mr. Thomas Burt, the two< chief officials of the 
National Union of Miners, to enter Parliament as the first 
Labor members. 

Of course something was done for the workingman, the 
historian can point out. Even in 1867 2 Lord Elcho had 
succeeded in carrying through the Master and Servant Act. 3 
The condition existing previously, namely, that a work¬ 
ingman in case of breach of contract, could be arrested on 
warrant and imprisoned, subjected to' hard labor by the 
justice, while the employer could be attacked only by civil 
action, had been much complained of and was now re¬ 
medied by the law which put both employer and employee 
on the same level by making it possible to summon either 
for breach of contract before the magistrates who 1 might 
fine or order the contracts to be fulfilled. Leaders of the 
trade unions had agitated for an amended law since 1863 
and with the passage of the measure of 1867 not only “ won 
the first positive success of the trade unions in the legislative 
field” but “did much to increase their confidence in 
Parliamentary agitation.” 4 

In the same year was passed the Factory Acts Extension 


1 Slater, The Making of Modern England, p. 210. 

* The bill received the royal assent on August 20, 1867; a select com¬ 
mittee had been appointed for inquiry in 1866. 

9 The 30 and 31 Viet., c. 141. 

4 Sidney and Beatrice Webb, The History of Trade Unionism, p. 236. 


270 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


[270 

Act 1 whereby the restrictions on the employment of women 
and children in dangerous trades were extended and the 
powers of inspectors increased, and also the Workshop Re¬ 
gulation Act 2 applicable to an establishment in which fewer 
than fifty persons were employed in any manufacturing 
process, except those already included under factory acts. 
This Act defined “ employed ” as work in any handicraft, 
whether for wages or not, under a master or under a parent 
and hence was supposed to control home-workers. 3 A law 
which limited hours of work but gave no< fixed times was 
easily evaded and often proved, of course, a dead letter. 

There was the Factory Act 4 of 1874 whereby the hours 
of labor for women and children were still further reduced, 
i. e. } to a maximum of fifty-six and one half a week. The 
men who would find their day’s work completed when the 
machinery was shut down with the departure of the women 
and children, had hoped for a fifty-four hour week from the 
Conservatives whom they had helped to elect in 1874. 5 The 
new Government, reputed, at the time, to be more f avorably 
inclined than the Liberals toward labor, nevertheless dis¬ 
appointed trade union demands by effecting but slight im¬ 
provement on existing conditions. 6 There was the Em¬ 
ployers’ Liability Bill 7 of 1880 which met in part a griev¬ 
ance often protested against by the trade union world. 
Since 1837 the courts had decided that although an employer 

x The 30 and 31 Viet., c. 103. Disraeli spoke of this in one of the 
Edinburgh speeches, as an instance of interest on the part of the Gov¬ 
ernment in the welfare of the working class. 

*30 and 31 Viet., c. 146. 

3 Hutchins and Harrison, A History of Factory Legislation, p. 171. 

4 37 and 38 Viet., c. 44. 

% Cf. Hutchins and Harrison, p. 175. 

•For the Consolidation and Amendment Bill of 1878 vide Hutchins and 
Harrison, pp. 176 et seq. 

7 43 and 44 Viet., c. 42. 


CONCLUSION 


271] 


271 


was liable to a member of the public for the result of his 
workmen’s negligence he was liable to those in his em¬ 
ploy only for the result of negligence on his own part, and 
not for the result of negligence on the part of one employee 
to a worker in common employment. Injured persons liv¬ 
ing near a mine might get damages from the mine owner in 
case of an explosion due to the carelessness of a miner; 
fellow miners could not bring suit for damages on account 
of the doctrine of common employment. 1 The influence of 
great employers in both the Conservative and the Liberal 
parties prevented an abolition of this doctrine of common 
employment but it could not prevent the Act of 1880 which 
made the employer liable to his workingmen for negligence 
on the part of superintendents or foremen “ to whose orders 
the workmen were bound to conform.” There was the 
Artisans’ Dwellings Act 2 of 1875 which, intended to be the 
cause of better dwellings for the working classes, was never 
of great effect. 

The passage of the Education Bill 3 of 1870, too, met the 
oft-voiced demands of the workingmen. Mr. Forster was 
chiefly responsible for this Act by the ter*ms of which the 
supply of efficient elementary schools was to become ade¬ 
quate for needs in all sections of the country. It was felt 
that the Act of 1867 by entrusting to the urban working¬ 
men the responsibilities of citizenship had made it necessary 
that illiteracy as a peril to a democratic state should be re¬ 
moved. Mr. Lowe had correctly forecast the future legis¬ 
lation in 1867 when he declared to the House of Commons: 
“ I believe it will be absolutely necessary that you should 
prevail on our future masters to learn their letters.” 4 


1 Paul, op. ext., vol. iv, p. 153. 

1 38 and 39 Viet., c. 36. 

*33 and 34 Viet., c. 75. 

4 Hansard, vol. clxxxviii, p. 1549. 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


272 


[272 


In 1871, moreover, the Government found itself forced 
to- legislate on the subject of trade unions. 1 The influence 
of trade unions had assisted, it has been seen, in accomplish¬ 
ing the passage of the Representation of the People bill in 
1867. Nevertheless, the leaders of the societies had little 
feeling of security in 1867. Because of outrages, especially 
at Sheffield, the public viewed the movement with the eyes 
of a Charles Reade; and in a case involving the funds of the 
Boiler-makers’ society, the Court of Queen’s Bench declared 
that trade unions were illegal associations. Hence they 
could not seek legal protection for their accumulated funds. 
In the early part of 1867 the leaders convened a “ Confer¬ 
ence of Amalgamated Trades.” It was little more than a 
meeting of the “ Junta,” the informal cabinet of five trade 
union leaders living in London, 3 and a few friends. As¬ 
sisted by Mr. Torn Hughes in Parliament and by the writers, 
Professor Beesly and Mr. Frederic Harrison, out of doors, 
it tried to obtain a legal status for the societies. The major¬ 
ity report of a royal commission appointed to inquire into 
the whole subject of trade unionism, was not hostile, while 
a minority report advocated the removal of all special legisla¬ 
tion relating to labor contracts and contended that no act by 
a combination of men should be regarded as criminal if it 
would not have been criminal in a single person. Mr. Har¬ 
rison was anxious to bring the trade unions under existing 
acts for the protection of their funds against fraud or theft 
but to have them retain a legal privilege of being incapable 
of being sued or otherwise proceeded against as a corporate 


l Vide Webb, History of Trade Unionism, chap. v. 

’The men in this group were William Allan and Robert Applegarth, 
the general secretaries of the two amalgamated societies of Engineers 
and 'Carpenters, Daniel Guile, general secretary of the national society of 
Ironfounders, Edwin Coulson, general secretary of the “ London Order ” 
of Bricklayers, and George Odger—the Reform speaker—a member of 
the union of makers of ladies’ shoes. 


CONCLUSION 


273 ] 


273 


entity. A bill embodying such proposals was introduced 
in the first Parliament elected after the passage of the 
Reform Act of 1867. The Liberal Government was against 
it but demonstrations by the workingmen led to the promise 
that the cabinet would soon bring in a bill of its own. Ac¬ 
cordingly in 1871 legislation 1 was passed, providing that 
no trade union was to be illegal merely because it was in 
restraint of trade, but an important additional bill 2 3 pro¬ 
vided that any violence, threat or molestation for the purpose 
of coercing either employer or employed should be severely 
punished. The terms used in this latter bill were not de¬ 
fined, and the trade unionists knew that no effective policy 
could be carried out under such a law. Their protests, how¬ 
ever, were without result—until the elections of 1874 when 
the Liberals found themselves out of power. Conserva¬ 
tives alive to the political influence of the unions repealed 
the Criminal Law Amendment Act in 1875 an d passed a 
new bill expressly permitting peaceful picketing. 31 Moreover, 
by replacing the Master and Servant Act of 1867 by an Em¬ 
ployers and Workmen Act, 4 master and servant became, as 
employer and employee, two equal parties to a civil con¬ 
tract and imprisonment for breach of engagement was 
abolished. Trade union demands were completely satisfied. 

But for some time after the passage of the Reform bill of 
1867 the workingmen followed the two great parties too 
closely to obtain great and important results for themselves. 
Trade unionism after its triumph in 1875 passed through 
financial trials during the trade depression of following 
years until by 1879 its total membership had decreased to 
that of the year 1871. And, as a result of the laisser faire 


1 The 34 and 35 Viet., c. 31. 

7 The 34 and 35 Viet., c. 32. 

3 The 38 and 39 Viet., c. 86. 

4 The 38 and 39 Viet., c. 90 


THE ENGLISH REFORM BILL OF 1867 


274 


[274 


political and social creed o<f the leaders, the trade union 
world failed to exercise any effective influence upon Parlia¬ 
ment between 1876 and 1885. 1 Hence the bill of 1867 did 
not bear its chief fruits until many years later. Distrust 
of the promises of the Liberals and the Conservatives, how¬ 
ever, was to be seen at times, and among the workingmen 
and their leaders there cropped up occasionally the idea that 
real emancipation of labor would come only through their 
banding together, through strikes, and perhaps through aj 
complete international social revolution, rather than through 
the promised, though too often deferred, activity of any 
of the political parties. That politics did count, however, 
was to be shown in a quarter of a century by the formation 
and activity of the Labor party. That party formed from 
the union of a Social Democratic party founded in the early 
’eighties on the Marxian gospel, a Fabian Society founded 
shortly afterward with the idea of educating the public in 
Socialism, and an Independent Labor party founded in the 
early ’nineties on Socialistic principles but acknowledging 
the need of occasional compromise, was brought into being 
in 1901 as a result O'f the Taff Vale decision by the House 
of Lords. By that decision trade unions were held re¬ 
sponsible for damages done by individual members. Labor 
interests, therefore, called for defense; hence the Labor 
party. The Labor party was fortunate, too, in finding the 
Liberals willing to* work with it. The Liberals, influenced 
by the writings of Henry George, by the Fabians, and per¬ 
haps even more by the actual facts concerning the physical 
condition of the English workingman as brought out by the 
examination of Boer War recruits, decided that something 
must be done for the lower classes. The opening years of 
the twentieth century, therefore, witnessed a great amount 


, Webb. History of Trade Unionism , p. 356. 


CONCLUSION 


275 ] 


275 


of social legislation in Great Britain. The people were 
using their democratic representative mastery over govern¬ 
ment as a means through which to' undertake general social 
control. 1 The Reform Bill of 1867 had borne its fruit. 
Demands of the Reform speakers of 1867 were being real¬ 
ized ; socialization of politics had come. And, to the student 
of to-day it seems unlikely that the Workmen’s Compensa¬ 
tion Act 2 * of 1906, the provisions for Child Welfare® in 
1908, for the Old Age Pensions 4 in 1908, the work for the 
unemployed and the Labor Exchange 5 Act of 1909, the 
Measure 6 of 1909 dealing with sweated labor, as well as 
Great Britain’s imperialistic policy, would have been viewed 7 
with displeasure by the author of Sybil. Further reforms 
of the franchise have advanced democracy; and although 
political leaders had but little opportunity to' attempt a 
remedy for social sores during the course of the Great War, 
it is safe to predict that, with the coming of peace and the 
triumph of democracy’s cause, England’s statesmen and 
England’s Government will give more time and more atten¬ 
tion than ever before to the demands and needs of the 
workingman. 


l Cf. Carlton Hayes, British Social Politics (Boston, 1913), pp. 2 and 3. 

3 The 6 Edw. VII, c. 58. 

8 The 8 Edw. VII, c. 67. 

4 The 8 Edw. VII, c. 40. 

5 The 9 Edw. VII, c. 7. 

6 The 9 Edw. VII, c. 22. 

T It is easy to imagine, on the other hand, what would have been 
Disraeli’s attitude on the curbing of the Lords. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Adams, (Charles Francis, Charles Francis Adams. Boston and New 
York, 1900. 

Annuaire des Deux Mondes. 

Annual Register. 

Anstey, Thomas Chisholm, Notes upon the Representation of the. People 
Act, 1867. London, 1867. 

Argyll, Duke of (George Douglas Campbell), Autobiography and 
Memoirs, edited by the Dowager Duchess of Argyll. 2 vols. New 
York, 1906. 

Arnold, !R. Arthur, The History of the Cotton Famine from the Fall of 
Sumter to the Passing of the Public Works Act. New edition. 
London, 1865. 

Ashwell, Arthur )Rawson, Life of the Right Reverend Samuel Wilber - 
force. 3 vols. London, 1880-82. 

Bagehot, Walter. Essays on Parliamentary Reform. London, 1883. 

Bassett, Arthur Tinley, Gladstone’s Speeches. Descriptive Index and 
Bibliography. London, 1916. 

Baxter, Robert, The Panic of 1866 with its Lessons on the Currency 
Act. London, 1866. 

Baxter, R. Dudley, National Income. London, 1868. 

-, The New Reform Bill . London, 1866. 

-, The Taxation of the United Kingdom. London, 1869. 

Blackie, John iStuart, On Government. Edinburgh, 1867. 

Blanc, Louis, Letters on England. Translated from the French by James 
Hutton and revised by the author. 2 vols. London, 1866. 

-, Lettres sur VAngleterre. Deuxieme Serie. Paris, 1866. 

Bowley, A. L., A Short Account of England’s Foreign Trade in the 
Nineteenth Century. Revised edition. London, 1905. 

-, Wages in the United Kingdom in the Nineteenth Century. Cam¬ 
bridge, 1900. 

Brassey, Thomas B., On Work and Wages. 3rd edition. London, 1872. 

Bright, John, The Public Letters of John Bright. Collected and edited 
by H. J. Leech. London, 1885. 

-, Speeches on the American Question. Boston, 1865. 

-, Speeches on Parliamentary Reform. London, 1866. 

-, Speeches on Questions of Public Policy. Edited by James E. 

Thorold Rogers. London, 1868. 

276 


[276 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


277] 


277 


Brodrick, G. C., The Utilitarian Argument against Reform as Stated 
by Mr. Lowe. London, 1867. 

Bryce, James, The Historical Aspect of Democracy. London, 1867. 

, Studies in Contemporary Biography. London, 1903. 

Buxton, Sydney, Finance and Politics; an Historical Study 1783-1885. 

2 vols. London, 1888. 

Carlyle, Thomas, Shooting Niagara: And Afterf London, 1867. 

Chesterton, G. K., The Victorian Age in Literature. London, 1913. 

Cole, H. W., The Middle Classes and the Borough Franchise. London, • 
1866. 

Cooper, Ihomas. Life, Written by Himself. 2nd edition. London, 1872. 

Cox, Homersham, A History of the Reform Bills of 1866 and 1867. 
London, 1868. 

-, Whig and Tory Administrations. London, 1868. 

Cracroft, Bernard, The Analysis of the House of Commons, or Indirect 
Representation. London, 1867. 

Dickinson, G. Lowes, The Development of Parliament during the Nine¬ 
teenth Century. London, 1895. 

Dictionary of National Biography. 

Disraeli, Benjamin, The Chancellor of the Exchequer in Scotland, being 
Two Speeches delivered by Him in the City of Edinburgh. Edin¬ 
burgh and London, 1867. 

-, Sybil or the Two Nations. London, 1845. 

-■, Vivian Grey. London, 1881. Original edition 1826-1827. 

-, Whigs and Whiggism. Political Writings. London, 1913. 

Dover, 'Richard. Progress versus Collapse. Westminster, 1869. 

Dunning, William Archibald, The British Empire and the United States. 
New York, 1914. 

Fawcett, Henry, The Economic Position of the British Labourer. Cam¬ 
bridge and London, 1865. 

Fox, Wilson, Report on the Wages and Earnings of Agricultural La¬ 
bourers with Statistical Tables and Charts. London, 1900. 

Fraser, Sir William, Disraeli and his Day. 2nd edition. London, 1891. 

Frost, Thomas, Forty Years’ Recollections. London, 1880. 

Giffin, Sir Robert, Essays in Finance. 2nd series. New York, 1886. 

Gladstone, W. E., Gleanings of Past Years. 7 vols. London, 1879. 

Green, Willoughby, Workingmen and Their Wages. Leeds, 1869. 

Hansard. 

Hardy, Gathorne, A Memoir. 2 vols. London, 1910. 

Hare, Thomas, Memorandum on the History, Working, and Results of 
Cumulative Voting. London, 1871. 

-, A Treatise on the Election of Representatives, Parliamentary and 

Municipal. 3rd edition. London, 1865. 

Harris, William, History of the Radical Party in Parliament. London, 

1885. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


[278 


278 

Harrison, Frederic, Foreign Policy. London, 1867. 

Hayes, Carlton J. H., British Social Politics. Boston, 1913. 

-, A Political and Social History of Modern Europe. 2 vols. New 

York, 1917. 

Heaton, William, The Three Reforms of Parliament. London, 1885. 

Hickson, W. E., Tracts for Inquirers. London, 1867. 

Hill, Frederic, Parliamentary Reform. London, 1865. 

Hodder, Edwin, The Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of Shaftes¬ 
bury. 3 vols. London, 1888. 

Holland, Bernard, The Life of Spencer Compton, Eighth Duke of 
Devonshire. 2 vols. London, 1911. 

Holt, Winifred, A Beacon for the Blind Being a Life of Henry Fawcett 
the Blind Postmaster General. Boston, 1914. 

Holyoake, George Jacob, Sixty Years of an Agitator’s Life. 4th edition. 
2 vols. London, 1900. 

Hunt, William, and Poole, Reginald L., The Political History of 
England. 12 vols. London, 1906. 

Hutchins, B. L., and Harrison, A., A History of Factory Legislation. 
2nd edition revised. London, 1911. 

Hutton, R. H., The Political Character of the Working Class. London, 
1867. 

Hyndman, H. M., Commercial Crises of the Nineteenth Century. Lon¬ 
don, 1892. 

Irving, Joseph, The Annals of Our Time. London, 1875. 

Jones, Ernest, Democracy Vindicated. Edinburgh, 1867. 

Kebbel, T. E., Lord Beaconsfeld and other Tory Memories. New York, 
1907. 

Kent, C. B. R., The English Radicals. London, 1899. 

Kinnear, John Boyd, Redistribution of Seats. London, 1867. 

L„ Queries on the Franchise. Norwich, 1866. 

Lang, Andrew, Life, Letters, and Diaries of Sir Stafford Northcote. 
New edition. Edinburgh and London, 1891. 

Lecky, William E. H., Democracy and Liberty . 2 vols. New York 
and London, 1896. 

Levi, Leone, The History of British Commerce and of the Economic 
Progress of the British Nation 1763-1878. 2nd edition. London, 1880. 

-, Wages and Earnings of the Working Classes. London, 1867. 

Lowell, A. Lawrence, The Government of England. New edition. 2 
vols. New York, 1917. 

Ludlow. J. M., and Jones, Lloyd, The Progress of the Working Classes. 
London, 1867. 

Lushington, Godfrey, Workmen and Trade Unions. London, 1867. 

McCarthy, Justin, A History of Our Own Times. 2 vols. New York, 
1880. ' .■ | 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


279] 


279 


MacDonald, William, The Government of Maine. New York and 
London, 1902. 

Mackey, Thomas, History of the English Poor Law. London, 1899. 
Malmesbury, James Howard Harris, Memoirs of an Ex-Minister; an 
Autobiography. 2 vols. London, 1884. 

May, Sir Thomas Erskine, and Holland, Francis, Constitutional History 
of England. 3 vols. London, 1912. 

Mill, John Stuart, Autobiography. 3rd edition. New York, 1874. 
Molesworth, W. N., History of the Reform Question from 1832 to 
1866. Fortnightly Review, vol. vii. 

Monypenny, William F., and Buckle, George E., The Life of Benjamin 
Disraeli. 4 vols. New York, 1910-16. 

Morley, John, The Life of William Ewart Gladstone. 3 vols. London, 
1903. 

Mulhall, M. G., The Dictionary of Statistics. London, 1899. 

Murchison, J. H., The Conservatives and “Liberals” Their Principles 
and Policy. 2nd edition. London, 1866. 

Murdock, James, A History of Constitutional Reform in Great Britain 
and Ireland. Glasgow, 1885. 

Nadaud, M., Histoire des Classes Ouvrieres en Angleterre. Paris, 1872. 
Noble, John, Free Trade, Reciprocity and the Revivers. London, 1867. 
O’Brien, R. Barry, John Bright; a Monograph. London, 1910. 
Ostrogorski, M., Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties. 
Translated from the French by Frederick Clarke. 2 vols. New 
York, 1902. 

Palmer, Roundell, Memorials. 4 vols. London, 1896-1898. 
Parliamentary Reports, Accounts and Papers. 

Parker, Charles iStuart, Popular Education. London, 1867. 

Paul, Herbert, A History of Modern England. 5 vols. New York, 1904. 
Periodicals: 

Athenaeum. 

Beehive. 

Blackwood’s. 

British Workman. 

Contemporary Review. 

Dublin Review. 

Economic Review. 

Economist. 

Edinburgh Review. 

Era. 

Fortnightly Review. 

Frazer’s. 

Home and Foreign Review. 

Illustrated London News. 


28 o 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


[280 


Journal of the Statistical Society of London. 

London Review. 

Macmillan’s. 

National Review. 

News of the World. 

Nineteenth Century. 

North British Review. 

Public Opinion. 

Punch. 

Quarterly Review. 

Revue des Deux Mondes. 

Saturday Review. 

Spectator. 

Times. 

Westminster Review. 

Political Euclid, The Reform Problem. London, 1866. 

Porter, G. 'R., The Progress of the Nation. Revised by F. W. Hirst. 
London, 1912. 

The Public General Statutes. 

Rathbone, William, The Rock Ahead. A few Thoughts on Parlia¬ 
mentary Reform. Edinburgh and London, 1867. 

-, Soundings in Political Waters; an Inquiry into the Principles of 

Parliamentary Representation. Edinburgh, 1867. 

Reade, Charles, Put Yourself in His Place. New York, 1870. Origin¬ 
ally published in the Cornhill Magazine, 1869-70. 

Reid, Stuart J., Memoirs of Sir Wemyss Reid. London, 1905. 

Reid, T. Wemyss, Life o.f the Right Honorable W. E. Forster. 2nd 
edition. 2 vols. London, 1888. 

Representative Reform. Report of the Committee appointed by the 
Conference of Members of the Reform League, and Others, on 
Mr. Hare’s Scheme of Representation. London, 1868. 

Rhodes, J. F., History of the United States. 8 vols. New York, 
1900-1919. 

Rogers, James E. Thorold, Bribery. London, 1867. 

Rose, J. H., The Rise of Democracy. London, 1897. 

Russell (1st Earl), John, Essay on the History of the English Gov¬ 
ernment and Constitution. New edition. London, 1866. 

-, Recollections and Suggestions. London, 1875. 

Rutson, A. O., Opportunities and Shortcomings of Government in Eng¬ 
land. London, 1867. 

Saintsbury, George, The Earl of Derby. New York, 1892. 

Scrope, G. Poullett, No Vote, No Rate. London, 1867. 

Seymour, Charles, Electoral Reform in England and Wales. New 
Haven, 1915. 


28 1] BIBLIOGRAPHY 281 

Seymour, Charles, and Frary, Donald Paige, How the World Votes. 
2 vols. Springfield, Mass., 1918. 

Slater, Gilbert, The Making of Modern England. New revised edition. 
Boston, 1915. 

Slosson, Preston W., The Decline of the Chartist Movement. New 
York, 1916. 

Smith, George Barnett, The Life and Speeches of the Right Honorable 
John Bright. 2 vols. London, 1885. 

Smith, Goldwin, The Experience of the American Commonwealth. 
London, 1867. 

Stanley, W. F., Proposition for a New Reform Bill. London, 1867. 
Stephen, Sir Leslie, Life, of Henry Fawcett. 2nd edition. London, 1885. 

-, The “Times” on the American War. In Magazine of History, 

vol. x. 

Sybel, Heinrich von, Die Begriindung des Deutschen Reiches durch 
Wilhelm I. 7 vols. Munich, 1890-94. There exists a translation 
into English by M. L. Perris and G. Bradford. 

Taylor, F. Isabel, A Bibliography of Unemployment and the Unem¬ 
ployed. London, 1909. 

Townsend, Meredith, The Poor. London, 1867. 

Toynbee, A., Lectures on the Industrial Revolution. 3rd impression. 
London, 1913. 

Traill, H. D., Social England. 6 vols. London, 1897. 

Trevelyan, George Macaulay, The Life of John Bright. London, 1913. 
Walpole, Sir Spencer, History of Twenty-five Years. 4 vols. London, 
1904-08. 

-, Life of Lord John Russell. 2nd edition. 2 vols. London, 1889. 

Ward, Robert, Thoughts on the Reform Question, and Proposals for its 
Solution. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1867. 

Wason, Rigby, The Currency Question. London, 1869. 

Webb, Sidney, and Beatrice, Industrial Democracy. London, 1902. 

-, The History of Trade Unionism. New edition. London, 1911. 

White, William Hale, An Argument for an Extension of the Franchise. 
London, 1866. 

Wood, George H., The History of Wages in the Cotton Trade during 
the Past Hundred Years. London, 1910. 

Wright, Thomas, Some Habits and Customs of the Working Classes. 
London, 1867. 












INDEX 


Aberdeen, Lord, 26 
Adams, C. F., 40, 44 
Adullamites, 96, 97, 100-1, 111-2, 
131, 138, 147, 149, 152, 160, 162-3, 
174, 184-5, 187, 199, 217, 222 
Agriculture, from 1841-61, 14; in 
early ’30s, 20, 22; in ’50s, 23; in 
early ’6os, 51, 88, in 1865, 52; 
in 1866-7, 57-8, 67, 79 
Amalgamated Engineers, Ii6w, 183 
America and the English Reform 
movement, 33, 38-50, 133, 161, 
164, 169-70, 182, 190, 226 
Baines, E., 91, 178, 183, 214 
Ballot, secret, 214-5, 263 
Beales, Edmund, 89, 101-7, 111-2, 
120-1, 129 

Beehive , 83W, 84, 113W 
Beesly, E. S., 33, 49, 83ft, 99, 272 
Bismarck, 31-2, 112, 133 
Blanc, Louis, 29, 34, 42, 44-5 
Bribery, no, 142, 155-6, 163, 168, 
181, 186, 202, 222, 233, 256, 262-4 
Bright, John, 19, 27-8, 30, 32, 38- 
41, 43, 49, 89, 92, 94-5, 97, 101, 
106-111, 113-5, 117, 121, 123-4, 
131-4, 138, 145, 146, 148, 150, 155, 
158-9, 172-3, 179 , 181, 196, 197 - 8 , 
202-4, 208-10, 215,218, 220-1,225- 
7, 232, 249, 266 

Bulwer-Lytton, Sir E., 167-168 
Cairns, Sir Hugh, 156, 163 
Carlton Club, 197 
Carlyle, T., 233 

Carnarvon, Earl of, 189, 194, 197, 
199, 200 

Cattle plague, 56, 64-5, 131 
Cavour, 33 

Chartists, 19, 21-5, 214 
Cholera, 65, 76-7, 79 
Cobbett, William, 20 
Cobden, R., 41, 43, 46-7,89, 138,182 
Commerce, 14, 24, 51-2, 58, 62-3, 
166, 168 
283] 


Commercial crisis of 1825, 59; of 
1864, 55; of 1866, 59-62, 64, 76, 
78-81, 83-4, 130, 133, 157, 192 

Compound householder, 128-9, 142, 
201, 205-7, 209-12, 224, 229n, 230, 
262 

Corn Laws, 20-1, 22w, 138, 152, 188 
Cotton famine, 44, 53-6, 183 
Cotton trade, 43, 52 - 3 , 55 , 63, 68, 
70 , 79 

Cranborne, Viscount (Robert 
Cecil), 42, 148, 161, 188, 191, 
194, 197, 199, 200, 202, 208, 211, 
217, 221-2, 241, 255 
Derby, Earl of, 27, 34, 37, 88, 101, 
121, 176, 187-9, 191-2, 194, 197-9, 
205, 219-20, 223, 226, 229, 230, 
233, 235-6, 244, 247, 249, 252-3 
Dickson, Colonel, 32M, 112, 128 
Disraeli, B., 20, 27, 34, 36-7, 40-1, 
123, 125, 128 n, 129-30, 134, 151, 
153 - 5 , 157 , 174 , 184, 188, 189-205, 
207-215, 218, 220-1, 223-4, 226- 
32, 234-47, 249-56, 259-60, 265-6, 
275 

Distress effective for Reform, 49, 
51, 65, 71-2, 80-6, 133 
Dunkellin, Lord, 159, 185-6, 200 
Education, 99, 109, 132, 168, 175, 
177, 181, 217, 271 

Elcho, Lord, 116, 150, 163, 217, 222, 
269 

Election of 1865,91-2; of 1868, 247, 
252-4 

Emerson, R. W., 98, I03» 
Emigration, 23, 166, 175 
Factory acts after 1832, 19; after 
1867, 269-71 

Fawcett, Henry, 34 146, 181, 213 
Fenians, 65, 113, 134, 248 
Forster, W. E., 41-4, 47, 49, 89, 93, 
95, 109, 121, 133, 140, 149, 210-1, 
271 

France and the English Reform 
movement, 29-31, 32-33, 112, 190 
283 




284 

Franchise, defects of, after 1832, 
17-8 

Free trade, 21, 2 2m, 51, 81, 169 
Garibaldi, 33, 35-7 
Germany and the English Reform 
movement, 31-3, 112, 133 
Giffen, Sir Robert, 79-80 
Gladstone, W. E, 35, 37-8, 40, 48-9, 
92-3, 95-7, 101-2, 106-8, hi, 113, 
123-4, 127, 136-44, 148, 151, 153 - 5 , 
157-9, 172-3, 175-6, 180, 185-6, 
191-2, 196, 198, 201-12, 214-5, 218- 
25, 227, 236, 244, 248, 249-52, 254, 
266 

Gold, discovery of, 23-4, 166 
Goschen, G. J., 93 ,140, 153 , 175 ,182 
Grosvenor, Earl, 127, 148, 151, 157 
Hardy, Gathorne, 189, 203, 211 
Hare, Thomas, 216 
Harrison, Frederic, 83M, 100, 272 
Henley, J. W., 28 m , 118, 197, 211, 
244 

Hodgkinson, G., 210, 212, 224, 227, 
230, 232, 234 

Horsman, E., 91, 116, 145-7, 164 
Housing conditions, complaints of, 
131-2, 177 

Hughes, Thomas, 93, 272 
Hume, Joseph, 21 
Hyde Park incident, 102-5, m-2, 
116, 118, 121, 133, 190-2 
Ireland, 15, 65, 112, 116, 125, 141, 
153, 178, 247-50, 252, 254, 259-60 
Iron industry, 64, 73, 79, 81 
Italy and the English Reform 
movement, 33-8, 49, 112, 133 
King, Locke, 27M, 87, 212 
Labor party, 274 
Laing, S., 16, 144-5, 147 , 164, 196, 
213-4 

Lancashire operatives, 44, 47, 54-6, 
73 , 183 

Layard, A. H., 150, 181 
Levi, Leone, 68, 69M 
Lincoln, 147M 

London Working Men’s Associa¬ 
tion, hi, 125, 127, 206, 225 
Lowe, Robert, 96, 100-1, 112, 116, 
133, 138, 145-7, I5I-3, 155-7, 162- 
3, 166, 168-9, 172, 195, 211, 215, 
217, 248, 271 

Lucraft, B., 101-2, 124, 225M 
Maine Liquor Law, 169-70 
Malthus, 98 


[284 

Manufactures, 14, 22-4, 42-3, 52-3,. 

63-4 

Master and Servant Act, 99, 131, 

177,269,273^ . _ 

Mill, J. S., 106-8, 113, 156, 183-4, 
209, 214, 2I6m 
Mining industry, 14, 61 
Minorities, representation of, 156, 
215-6, 220, 268 

Municipal Corporations Act of 
1835, 20 

Napoleon III, 27, 29, 33, 45 
Northcote, Sir Stafford, 189, 200 
O’Conner, F., 22n, 120 
Odger, G., 98-9, I 72 », 272* 
O’Donoghue, 125, 127 
Osborne, R. B., 155, 226 
Overend, Gurney & Co., 59 _ 6 i 
P akington, Sir John, 156, 200, 208 
Palmer, Sir Roundell, 155 
Palmerston, Lord, 26-28, 37, 40, 
87-8, 91-2, 133 , 135 - 7 , 139-40, 
I 44 , 152 o 

Pauperism, 52-3, 74-5, 77-8, 80-2,. 

84, 109, 132-3, 182 
Peel, Gen., 188, 194-5, 197 , 199 , 
200, 221 

Peel, Robert, 153, 188 
Place, Francis, 17 
Poor Law of 1834, 20, 22 
Population, 14-17, 24 
Potter, G., 83M, 113, 120-1, 123,. 
125-6 

Prices, 23, 56-8, 64-9, 74, 81 
Railways, 23, 60, 62, 113 
Redistribution, anomalies of, after 
1832, 13-7 

Reform Bill of 1832, 13, 22, 28, 
94, 101, 139, 152, 165, 175, 177 - 8 , 
231, 246, 253; of 1852, 26; of 
1854, 26; of 1859, 27-8, 136, 188; 
of i860, 28, 87, 138; of 1864, 87; 
of 1865, 91; of 1866, 16, 94-5, 97, 
100, 116-7, 123, 1 33 , 135 , 138; 
introduction of, 139-48; fran¬ 
chise qualifications of, 142-3; re¬ 
ception of, 144-6; second read¬ 
ing, 148-53; redistribution, 148-9, 
153-8; in committee, 158-60; de¬ 
feat of, 160, 185-7; arguments 
for and against, 160-84; of 1867,. 
popular attitude toward, 126-9,. 
219; introduction, 200-2; second 
reading, 202-5; in committee, 
207-17; motion for 3rd reading. 


INDEX 



28 5 ] 

217-9; in House of Lords, 219- 
20; royal assent, 220; influence 
of Gladstone upon, 221-5; i n ~ 
fluence of Bright upon, 225-7; 
influence of Disraeli upon, 227- 
32; influence of popular opinion 
upon, 232-4; effects upon the 
parties, 246-8, 254-7; effects upon 
the position of the working class, 
257-8, 265, 268-75; of 1884-5, 
266-8; of 1918, 268 
Reform League, 33M, 36ft, 89-91, 
95, 98, 101-2, 104-5, 107, 116-7, 
120-1, 123-5, 129-30, 133-4, 215, 
225, 232, 263, 266 
Reform League, Irish, 125 
Reform meetings of the ’6os, 89, 
91, 93-7, 101-2, 106-13, 118, 124-5, 
127-8, 134, 190, 198, 225, 234 
Reform of Upper House, 21, 267, 
275M 

Reform Union, 101, 107, 224M 
Registration, changes in system, 
260-2 

Resolutions offered by Conserva¬ 
tive Government, 125, 192-3, 195- 
6, 218 
Ricardo, 98 

Russell, Lord John (ist Earl), 17, 
22, 25-6, 28-9, 34. 46, 87-8, 92, 
hi, 136, 138-40, 145, 152, 185, 
187, 191-2, 233, 244 
Scotland, 88, 112, 141, 153 - 4 , 163, 
213, 228, 249, 252, 258-9, 260, 268 


285 

Shaftesbury, Lord, 187, 233, 236, 
241, 243 

Smith, Goldwin, 129-30 
Social legislation in the twentieth 
century, 275 

Stanley, Lord, 148, 158, 187M, 188, 
197M, 249 

Strikes, 73 , 79, 82-3, 115, 169, 179, 
274 

Tea-room schism, 207, 223 
Ten-)Minutes Bill, 193-6, 198 
Trade in ’5os, 23; in early ’6os, 51, 
57, 88; in 1865, 52; in 1866-7, 58, 
61-5, 76-80, 83-4, 109, 166, 190 
Trade unions, 17-8, 74, 83, 90, 105- 
6, 114-8, 120-2, 131, 134, 170-1, 
179, 182, 232, 269, 270, 272-4 
Unemployment, 23, 53, 56-7, 65, 
69, 74-8, 82-3 

Wages, 23, 52-3, 56-7, 61, 65, 67, 
69-74, 78, 81, 83, 88, 99, 166, 172 
Walpole, S. H., 28m, 102, 104-5, II2 , 
158, 188, 198 

War, Crimean, 24, 26; Civil, 38, 
52-3; Austro-Prussian, 31, 65, 79, 
185; Boer, 274; Great, 275 
Woman suffrage, 214, 268 
Working classes desirous of eco¬ 
nomic betterment, 18, 21-2, 85, 
98-100, 109-110, 118, 122, 130-3, 
171, 242 

Workingmen, feeling of, toward 
the Conservatives, 100-1, 129-30, 
209, 237-8, 242-5, 246 


INDEX 

































































































Columbia 'filnxujcvstixj 
iu ilxc Citxj of ?Xow lout 

The University includes the following : 

Columbia College, founded in 1754, and Barnard College, founded in 
1889, offering to men and women, respectively, programs of study which may 
be begun either in September or February and which lead normally in from three 
to four years to the degree of Bachelor of Arts. The program of study in Co¬ 
lumbia College makes it possible for a well qualified student to satisfy the require¬ 
ments for both the bachelor’s degree and a professional degree in law, medicine, 
technology or education in five to eight years according to the course. 

The Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy and Pure Science, offering 
advanced programs of study and investigation leading to the degrees of Master of 
Arts and Doctor of Philosophy. 

The Professional Schools of 

Law, established in 1858, offering courses of three years leading to the degree of 
Bachelor of Laws and of one year leading to the degree of Master of Laws ; 
Medicine. The College of Physicians and Surgeons, established in 1807, offering 
two-year courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Science and five- 
year courses leading to the degree of Doctor of Medicine. 

Mines, founded in 1863, offering courses of three years leading to the degrees 
of Engineer of Mines and of Metallurgical Engineer. 

Chemistry and Engineering, set apart from School of Mines in 1896, offering 
three-year courses leading to degrees in Civil, Electrical, Mechanical and 
Chemical Engineering. 

Teachers College, founded in 1888, offering in its School of Education courses 
in the history and philosophy of education and the theory and practice of 
teaching, leading to appropriate diplomas and the degree of Bachelor of 
Science in Education ; and in its School of Practical Arts founded in 1912, 
courses in household and industrial arts, fine arts, music, and physical trains 
ing leading to the degree of Bachelor of Science in Practical Arts. All the 
courses in Teachers College are open to men and women. These faculties 
offer courses leading to the degree of Master of Arts and Master of Science. 
Architecture, offering a program of indeterminate length leading to the degree 
of Bachelor of Architecture and Master of Science. 

Journalism, founded in 1912, offering a two-year course leading to the degree 
of Bachelor of Literature in Journalism. The regular requirement for ad¬ 
mission to this course is two years of college work. 

Business, founded in 1916, offering two and three-year courses in business train¬ 
ing leading to appropriate degrees. 

Dentistry, founded in 1917, offering four-year courses leading to appropriate 
degrees. 

Pharmacy. The Kew York College of Pharmacy, founded in 1881, offering 
courses of two, three and four years leading to appropriate certificates and 
degrees. 

In the Summer Session the University offers courses giving both general and 
professional training which may be taken either with or without regard to an 
academic degree or diploma. 

Through its system of Extension Teaching the University offers many courses 
of study io persons unable otherwise to receive academic training. 

The Institute of Arts and Sciences provides lectures, concerts, readings and 
recitals— approximately two hundred and fifty in number—in a single season. 

The price of the University Catalogue is twenty-five cents postpaid. Detailed 
information regarding the work in any department will be furnished without 
charge upon application to the Secretary of Columbia University , Kew York, 
N. Y. 


Foreign Rights and Interests 
in China 

BY 

W. W. WILLOUGHBY 

Professor of Political Science at the Johns Hopkins University 
Legal Adviser to the Chinese Republic, 1916-1917 

614 pages. 8vo. $7.50 

This volume provides a statement of the rights of for¬ 
eigners and the interests of foreign States in China as recog¬ 
nized in treaties with or relating to China or in other docu¬ 
ments of an official or quasi-official character. 

Because of its comprehensive and authoritative character, 
the work will be indispensable to merchants or banks having 
commercial or financial interests in China, to diplomatic and 
consular officials, to students of Far Eastern international poli¬ 
tics, and to scholars interested in the history and present polit¬ 
ical and legal institutions of China. 


The Johns Hopkins Press 

Baltimore, Maryland 



Columbia University Press Publications 


OCmSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN TEE UNITED STATES. By 

Woodrow Wilson, LL.D , President of the United States. Pp. vii-|-236. 
(KTR CHIEF MAGISTRATE AND HIS POWERS. By William Howard 
Taft, Twenty-seventn President of the United States. Pp. vii -|- 165. 
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER AND WOR ! D AFFAIRS. By George Suth¬ 
erland, former United States Senator from Utah. Pp. vii 2.02. 

WORLD ORGANIZATION AS AFFECTED BY THE NATURE OF THE 
MODERN STATE. By David Jayne Hill, LL.D., late American Ambas¬ 
sador to Germany. Pp. ix +214. Reprinted with new Preface. 

THE BUSINESS OF CONGRESS. By Samuel W. McCall, Governor of 
Massachusetts Pp. vii -f- 215. 

THE COST OF OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. By Henry Jones Ford, 
Professor of Politics in Princeton Uuiversity. Pp. xv -f- 147. 

POLITICAL PROBLEMS OF AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT. By Albert 

Shaw, LI .D., Editor of the Review of Reviews. Pp. vii-{-268. 

XHE PRINCIPLES OF POLITICS FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE 
AMERICAN CITIZEN. By Jeremiah W. Jenks, LL.D., Professor of Gov¬ 
ernment and Public Administration in New York University. Pp. xviii-j- 187. 
Tlir NATURE AND SOURCES OF THE LAW. By John Chipman Gray, 
LL.D., late Royall Professor of Law in Harvard University. Pp. xn -j-332. 
THE GENIUS OF THE COMMON LAW. By ilie Right Honorable Sir Fred¬ 
erick Pollock, Bart., D.C.L., LL.D. Pp. vii-{- 141. 

THOMAS JEFFERSON. His Permanent Influence on American Institutions. 

By John Sharp Williams, U. S. Senator from Mississippi. Pp. ix-f-330. 
THE MECHANICS OF LAW MAKING. By Courtenay Ilbert, G. C. B., 
Clerk of the House of Commons. Pp. viii -f- 209. 

LAW AND ITS ADMINISTRATION. By Harlan F. Stone, LL.D., Dean of 
the School of Law, Columbia University. Pp. vii -f- 232. 

AMERICAN CITY PROGRESS AND THE LAW. By Howard Lee Mc- 
Bain, Ph.D , Eaton Professor of Municipal Science and Administration, Co¬ 
lumbia University. Pp. viii -f- 269. 

Uniformly bound, 12mo, cloth. Each, $1.50 net. 


THE LAW AND THE PRACTICE OF MUNICIPAL HOME RULE. By How¬ 
ard Lf.e McBain, Eaton Professor of Municipal Science and Administration 
in Columbia University. 8vo, cloth, pp. xviii -|- 724. Price, $5.00 net . 

STUDIES IN SOUTHERN HISTORY AND POLITICS. Inscribed to William 
Archibald Dunning, Lieber Professor of History and Political Philosophy in 
Columbia University, by his former pupils, the authors. A collection of fifteen 
essays. 8vo, cloth, pp. viii -f- 294. $2 .50 net. 

THE ENGLISH SPEAKING BROTHERHOOD AND THE LEAGUE OF 
NATIONS. By Sir Charles Walston (Waldstein), M. A., Liu. D., for¬ 
merly Professor in the University of Cambridge. i2mo, boards, pp. xxiii-224, 
$1.60 net. 


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents 
30-32 East Twentieth Street, New York City 






THE VILLAGE LABOURER, 1760-1832: A Study in the Government of Eng¬ 
land before the Reform Bill. By J. L. and Barbara Hammond. 8vo. $3.25 
net. 

“There is not a chapter in Mr. and Mrs. Hammond’s book which fails to throw 
new light on enclosures or on the administration of the poor laws and the game 
laws, and on the economic and social conditions of the period. ... A few other 
studies of governing class rule before 1867 as searchingly analytical as Mr. 
and Mrs. Hammond’s book will do much to weaken this tradition and to make 
imperative much recasting of English History from 1688.”— 

— Am. Political Science Review. 

THE TOWN LABOURER, 1760-1832: The New Civilization. By J. L. Ham- 
mond and Barbara Hammond, Authors of “ The Village Labourer. 1760-1832 : 
A Study in the Government of England before the Reform Bill.” 8vo. 
$3.50 net. 

This volume is the first part of a study of the Industrial Revolution. It 
will be completed by another volume giving in detail the history of the work¬ 
people in various industries, with a full account of the Luddite rising and of 
the disturbances connected with the adventures of the agent provocateur Olive r- 

“ Never has the story been told with such masterly precision, or with 
such illuminating reference to the original sources of the time, as in this book 
.... The perspective and proportion are so perfect that the life of a whole 
era. analyzed searchingly and profoundly, passes before your eyes as you read.” 
— The Dial. 

“ A brilliant and important achievement. ' The Town Labourer’ will rank 
as an indispensable source of revelation and of inspiration.”— The Nation 
(London). 

BLACK AND WHITE IN THE SOUTHERN STATES: A Study of the Race 
Problem in the United States from a South African Point of View. By Mau¬ 
rice S. Evans. 8vo. $2.50 net. 

“This is a sequel to the author’s earlier volume. Black and White in 
South East Africa. It is a product of the same searching insight and the 
same candid observation.”— American Journal of Sociology. 

BLACK AND WHITE IN SOUTH EAST AFRICA: A Study in Sociology. 
By Maurice S. Evans. 8vo. $2.50 net. 

“ An exceedingly lucid statement of the arduous and intricate problem 
which lies before the people of South Africa in dealing with the native races.” 
— The Nation. 

Second Edition, brought up to the Spring of 1919 . 

THE CONTROL OF THE DRINK TRADE IN BRITAIN. A Contribution to 
National Efficiency during the Great War, 1915-1918. By Henry Carier. With 
Illustrations, Charts, and Diagrams, and a new Preface by Lord D’Abernon 
8vo. $1.75 net. 

His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury says : 

“ The whole position concerning intemperance has been fundamentally 
altered by the war. I would very earnestly and seriously ask any who remain 
unconvinced, either as to the necessity or the practicability of such changes, 
to read one book—sane, cool, lucid, and absolutely well-informed—‘ The Con¬ 
trol of the Drink Traded ” 


Fourth Avenue and 30th. Street, NEW YORK 

-J 

a»ifwauawf 


*^gw .axwss-. wua. 










LONGMANS, GREEN & CO. 


THE ADMINISTRATION OF INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES. 
With Special Reference to Factory Practice. By Edward D. 
Jones, Ph D., Professor of Commerce and Industry, University of Mich¬ 
igan. With Illustrations and Bibliographies. Large i2mo. $2.25 
net, (Fifth Impression). 

“To the head of any industrial organization, and especially to the executives of those 
which have not long been created and are still faced with many of the problems dis¬ 
cussed in the volume, it should be particularly useful.''— Wall Street Journal. 

THE WORKS MANAGER TO-DAY: An Address Prepared for 
a Series of Private Gatherings of Works Managers. By Sidney 
Webb, Professor of Public Administration in the University of London 
(School of Economic and Political Science). Crown 8vo. $1.25 net 
An examination, in easy lecture form, of the problems of management 
of any considerable industrial enterprise, especially in relation to the or¬ 
ganization of labor, methods of remuneration, “ Scientific Management ” 
and “ Welfare Work,” piecework and premium bonus systems, restriction 
of output and increase of production, the maintenance of discipline, etc. j 

THE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. By 

Ernest Ludlow Bogart, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics in 
the University of Illinois. With 26 Maps and 95 Illustrations. Crown 
8vo. 12 00. 

READINGS IN THE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE UNITED 
STATES. By E. L. Bogart, Ph.D., and C. M. Thompson, Ph D., 
of the University of Illinois. 8vo. $3.20. 

A source book which collects in one volume contemporary material 
illustrating the most important economic developments in the country’s 
history. The material is arranged as follows: Eight chapters deal with 
the United States before 1808; nine with the period of 1808-1860; and 
six with the period since i860. 

RAILROADS In two volumes. By William Z. Ripley, Ph.D. | 
Nathaniel Ropes Professor of Economics in Harvard University, author j 
of “ Railway Problems,” etc. 


Vol. I. RATES AND REGULATION, with 41 maps and diagrams. 
8vo. $3 50 net. 

Vol. II. FINANCE AND ORGANIZATION, with 29 maps and 


diagrams. 8vo. #3.50 net. 


PRINCIPLES OF ECONOMICS : with Special Reference to Amer¬ 
ican Conditions. By Edwin R. A. Seligman, LL.D. McVickar 
Professor of Political Economy in Columbia University. Eighth Edi- ; 
tion, Revised (1919). $2.75 net. 

UNEMPLOYMENT: A Problem of Industry. By W. PI. Beveridge, £ 
Stowell Civil Law Fellow of University College, Oxford, 1902-1906; f! 
formerly sub-Warden of Toynbee Hall and Member of the Central (Un- £ 
employed) Body for London. 8vo. #3.00 net. 




Fourth Avenue and 30 th Street, NEW YORK 














The Academy of Political Science 
in the City of New York 

The Academy of Political Science, founded in 1880, is com¬ 
posed of men and women interested in political, economic and 
social questions. Members receive the Political Science Quar¬ 
terly and the Proceedings of the Academy, and are entitled to 
admission to all meetings, lectures and receptions under the 
auspices of the Academy. The annual dues are five dollars. 
Address the Secretary of the Academy of Political Science, 
Columbia University, New York. 

POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY 

Managing Editor 

ROBERT LIVINGSTON SCHUYLER 

The Quarterly is devoted to the historical, statistical and 
comparative study of politics, economics and public law. Every 
article is signed and expresses simply the personal view of the 
writer. Each issue contains scholarly reviews and brief book 
notes and a valuable Record of Political Events throughout 
the world is printed as a supplement to the September issue. 
Address editorial communications to the Political Science 
Quarterly; business communications to the Academy of Polit¬ 
ical Science, Columbia University, New York. 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF 
POLITICAL SCIENCE 

The Proceedings are issued by the Academy as a record of 
its activities and as a means of giving detailed treatment to 
special subjects of importance. Recent issues are: The For¬ 
eign Relations of the United States, 454 pp., $1.50. Military 
Training: Compulsory or Volunteer, 262 pp., $1.50. Labor 
Disputes and Public Service Corporations, $1.50. The League 
of Nations Covenant, $1.50. Railroad Legislation, 280 pp., 
$1.50. A full list of the numbers thus far issued will be sent 
on request. Address Academy of Political Science, Columbia 
University, New York. 


Studies in History, Economics and Public Law 

edited by 

Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University 


VOLUME X, 1891-92. 2nd Ed., 1897. 396 pp. Price, cloth, $3 60. 

1. The Divorce Problem. A Study in Statistics. 

By Walter F. Willcox, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 

History of Tariff Administration In the United States,from Colonid* 
1 lines to tile McKinley Administrative Bill. 

By John Dean Goss, Ph. D. Price, $i .00. 

8. History of Municipal Land Ownership on ?danliattan Island. 

By George Ashton Black, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

4. Financial History of Massachusetts. 

By Charles H J. Douglas. Ph.D. Price, gi.oo. 


VOLUME II. 1892-93. (See note on last page.) 

1. [5] The Economics of the Russian Village. 

By Isaac A. Hourvvich, Ph.D. (Out of print ). 

2. [6] Bankruptcy. A Study in Comparative Legislation. 

By Samuel W. Lunscomb, Jr., Ph.D. (Not sold separately.) 
8. [7J Special Assessments ; A Study in Municipal Finance. 

By Victor Rosewater, Ph.D. Second Edition, 1898. Price, $1.00. 


VOLUME III, 1893. 465 pp. (See note on last page.) 

1. [8] *HIstory of Elections in American Colonies. 

By Cortland F Bishop, Ph.D. (Not sold separately.) 

2 . [9] The Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies. 

By George L. Beer, A. M. (Out of print.) 


VOLUME IV, 1893-94. 438 pp. (See note on last page.) 

1. [10] Financial History of Virginia. 

By William Z. Ripley, Ph D. (Not sold separately ) 

2 . 1 1 1 ] *The Inheritance Tax. By Max West, Ph.D. Second Edition, 1908 Price. $2 oo- 

3 . [ 12 ] HistO’W of Taxation in Vermont. By Frederick A. Wood, Ph D. (Out of print). 

r 

VOLUME V, 1895-96. 498 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50. 

1. [13] Double Taxation in the United States. 

By Francis Walker, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo, 

2. [14J The Separation of Governmental Powers. 

By William Bondy, LL.B., Ph.D. Price, *1.00, 
8. [15] Municipal Government In Michigan and Ohio. 

By Delos F. Wilcox, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

VOLUME VI, 1896. €01 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50; Paper covers, $4.G0. 

116] History of Proprietary Government In Pennsylvania. 

By William Robert Shepherd, Ph.D. 


VOLUME VII, 1896. 512 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50, 

1. [17] History of the Transition from Provincial to Commonwealth Gov¬ 

ernment in Massachusetts. By Harry A. Cushing, Ph.D. Price, $2.co. 

2. [18J*Speculationon the Stock and Produce Exchanges of the United States 

By Henry Crosby Emery, Ph.D. Price, $1.50, 


VOLUME VIII, 1896-98. 551 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1. [19] The Struggle between President Johnson and Congress over Recon¬ 

struction. By Charles Kknbst Chadsey, Ph.D. Price, fci.oo. 

2. 120] Recent Centralizing Tendencies in State Educational Administra¬ 

tion. By William Clarence Webster, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 

3. [21] The Abolition of Privateering and the Declaration of Paris. 

By Francis R. Stark, LL.B., Ph D. Price, fx oo., 
[22] Public Administration in Massachusetts. The Relation of Central 
to Local Activity. By Robert Harvey Whitten, Ph.D. Price, .1.00. 

VOLUME IX, 1897-98. 617 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1. [23] *English Local Government of To-day. A Study of the Relations of 

Central and Local Government. By Milo Roy Maltbie, Ph.D. Price, i>a.oo. 

2. [24] German Wage Theories. A History of their Development. 

By James W. Crook, Ph.D. Price, $i.co. 

S. [25] The Centralization of Administration in New York State. 

By John Archibald Fairlie, Ph.D, Price, $ i.QCk 



VOLUME X, 1898-99. 409 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50. 

1. [26] Sympathetic Strikes and Sympathetic Lookouts. ^ _ . 

By Fred S. Hall, Ph.D. Puce, $1.00 

2. [27] *Rhod© Island and the Formation of ihe Union. _ _ . 

By Frank Greene Bates, Ph.D. Price, ^t.=o. 

3. [38]. Centralized Administration of Eiquor Laws in the American Com-. 

monwealths. By Clement Moore Lacey Sites, Ph.D. Price, £i.oo. 

VOLUME XI, 1899. 495 pp. Price, cloth, 4.00; paper covers, $3.50. 

[ 89 ] The Growth of Cities. By Adna Fbrrin Wxber Ph.D. 

VOLUME XII, 1899-1900. 586 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1. [30] History and Functions of Central Labor Unions. 

By William Maxwell Burke, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

2. [81.] Colonial Immigration Laws. . 

By Edward Emerson Proper, A.M. Price, 75 cents. 

3. [38] History of Military Pension Legislation in the United States. 

By William Henry Glasson, Ph.D. Price, $i.qq. 

4. [38] History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau. 

By Charles h.. Merriam, Jr., Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

VOLUME XIII, 1901. 570 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1. [34] The Legal Property Relations of Married Parties. 

By Isidor Lobb, Ph.D. Price, £1.50. 

3. [85] Political Nativism in New York State. 

By Loins Dow Scisco, Ph.D. Price, $?.oo. 
3. [88] The Reconstruction of Georgia. By Edwin C. Woolley, Ph.D. Price, $ 1 . 00 . 


VOLUME XIV, 1901-1902. 576 pp. Price, cloth, $4-00. 

1. [87] Loyalism in New York during the American Revolution. 

By Alexander Clarence Flick, Ph.D. Price. #2.00. 
3. [38] The Economic Theory of Risk and Insurance. 

By Allan H. Willett, Ph.D. Price, #1.50. 
3. [39] The Eastern Question: A Study In Diplomacy. , 

By Stephen P. H. Duggan. Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

VOLUME XV, 1902. 427 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50; Paper covers, $3.00. 

[40] Crime In Its Relation to Social Progress. By Arthur Cleveland Hall, Ph.D. 

VOLUME XVI, 1902-1903. 547 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1. [41] Th© Past and Present of Commcrc© in Japan. 

By Yetaro Kinosita, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 
3. [43] Th© Employment of Women in th© Clothing Trade. 

By Mabel Hurd Willet, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 
3. [43] Th© Centralization of Administration in Ohio. 

By Samuel P. Orth, Ph.D. Price, *1.50. 

VOLUME XVII, 1903. 635 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1. [44] ‘•'Centralizing Tendencies In the Administration of Indiana. 

By William A. Rawles, Ph.D. Price, /2.5a 
3 . ( 45 ] Principles of Justice in Taxation. By Stephen F. Weston, Ph D. Price, £2.00, 

VOLUME XVIII, 1903. 753 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 

1 . [ 46 ] Th© Administration of Iowa. By Harold Martin Bowman, Ph.D. Price, £1.50. 

2. [47] Turgot and the Six Edicts. By Robert P. Shepherd, Ph.D. Price, *1.50. 

3. (48] Hanover and Prussia, 1795-1803. By Guy Stanton Ford, Ph.D. Price, & 2 . 00 . 

VOLUME XIX, 1903-1905. 588 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1 . [4 91 Josiah Tucker, Economist. By Walter Ernest Clark Ph D. Price, $1.50. 

2. 160] History and Criticism of th© Labor Theory of Value in English Polit¬ 

ical Economy. By Albert C. Whitaker, Ph.D. Price, £1.50. 

8. [51] Trad© Unions and the Law in New York. 

By George Gorham Groat, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 

VOLUME XX, 1904. 514 pp. Price, cloth. $3.50. 

1. [53] Th© Office of th© Justice of the Peace in England. 

By Charles Austin Beard, Ph.D. Price, fi.50. 

3. (53] A History of Military Government In Newly Acquired Territory of 

the United States. By David Y. Thomas, Ph.D. Price, fa.oo. 


VOLUME XXI, 1904. 746 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 

1. [54] *Treaties, their Making and Enforcement. 

Sy Samuel B. Crandall, Ph.D. 
3. [55] The Sociology of a New York City block. 

By Thomas Jesse Jones, Ph.D. 

3« [56] Pre-Maithusian Doctrines of Popu ation. 
i By Charles E. Stangeland, Ph.D. 


Price, $1.50. 
Price, $1.00. 
Price, $3.50. 


VOLUME XXII, 1905. 520 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50; paper covers, $3.00. 

[57] The Historical Development of the Poor Daw of Connecticut. 

By Edward W. Capkn, Ph. IX 


VOLUME XXIII, 1905. 594 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1. [58] The Economics of Land Tenure in Georgia. 

By Enoch Marvin Banks, Ph.D. Price, fli.oo. 
[50] Mistake in Contract. A Study in Comparative .Jurisprudence. 

, . . By Edwin C. McKeag, Ph.D. Price, *i.co. 

3. [60] Combination in the Mining Industry. 

_ By Hknry R. Mussey, Ph.D. Price, fti.oo. 

4. [61] The English Craft Guilds and the Government. 

By Stella Kramer, Ph.D. Price, $ i.oo. 

VOLUME XXIV, 1905. 521 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 


1. [62] The Place of Magic In the Intellectual History of Europe. 

By Lynn Thorndike, Ph.D. Price, £1.00. 

2. [63] The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosiau Code. 

By William K. Boyd, Ph.D. Price, $ 1 . 00 . 

3. [64] *The International Position of Japan as a Great Power. 

By Seiji G. Hishida, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. 

VOLUME XXV, 1906-07. 600 pp. (Sold only in Sets.) 

1. [65] *Municipal Control of Public Utilities. 

By O. L. Pond, Ph.D. {Not sold separately.) 

2. [66] The Budget In the American Commonwealths. 

By Eugene E. Agger, Ph.D. Price, $1.30. 

3 . [ 67 ] The Finances of Cleveland. By Charlbs C. Williamson, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. 


VOLUME XXVI, 559 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1. [68] Trade and Currency In Early Oregon. 

By James H. Gilbert, Ph.D. Price, #1.00. 

2 . [ 69 ] Luther’s Table Talk. By Preserved Smith, Ph.D. Price, #1.00. 

3. [70J The Tobacco Industry in the United States. 

By Meyer Jagobstein, Ph.D. Price, $1 50. 

4. [71] Social Democracy and Population. 

By Alvan A. Tenney, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 


VOLUME XXVII, 1907. 573 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1. [7 2] The Economic Policy of Robert Walpole. 

By Norris A. Brisco, Ph.D. Price, £1.50. 

2. [73] The United States Steel Corporation. 

By Abraham Berglund, Ph.D. Price, $i 50. 

3. [74] The Taxation of Corporations in Massachusetts. 

By Harry G. Friedman, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 


VOLUME XXVIII, 1907. 564 pp. Price, cloth, $4.C0. 

1. [75] DeWitt Clinton and the Origin of the Spoils System in New York. 

By Howard Lee McBain, Ph D. Price, $1.50. 

2. [76] The Development of the Legislature of Colonial Virginia. 

By Elmer 1 . Miller, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

3. [77] The Distribution of Ownership. 

By Joseph Harding Underwood, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

VOLUME XXIX, 1908. 703 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 

1 . [ 78 ] Early New England Towns. By Anne Bush MacLbar, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

2. L79J New Hampshire as a Royal Province. 

By William H. Fry, Ph.D. Price, $3.00. 


VOLUME XXX, 1908. 712 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50 ; Paper covers, $4.00. 


[SO] The Province of New Jersey, 1661—1738. By Edwin P. Tanner, Ph.D. 

VOLUME XXXI, 1908. 575 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1 . [81] Private Freight Cars and American Railroads. 

by L. D. H. Weld, Ph.D. Price, £1.50. 

2 . [ 83 ] Ohio before 1850 . By Robert E. Chaddock, Ph.D. Price,$i.so. 

3. 183] Consanguineous Marriages In the American Population. 

By George B. Louis Arnbr, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 

4 . [ 84 ] Adolphe Quetelet as Statistician. By Frank H. Hankins, Ph.D. Price, $1.25. 

VOLUME XXXII, 1908. 705 pp. Price, cloth, 4.50; paper covers, $4.00. 


85] The Enforcement of the Statutes of Laborers. 

By Bhrtha Haven Putnam, Ph. 


D. 


VOLUME XXXIII, 1908-1909. 635 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 

1. [86] Factory Legislation in Maine. By E. Stagg Whitin, A.B. Price,ga.oo. 

2 ’. 1 87 J ♦Psychological Interpretations of Society. . 

1 By Michael M. Davis, Jr., Ph.D. Price, ge.otx 

3. rssi *An Introduction to the Source^ relating to the Germanic Invasions. 
1 ' By Carlton J. B. Hayes, Ph.D. Price, $r .yx 


VOLUME XXXIV, 1909. 628 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 

1. [891 Transportation and Industrial Development in the Middle West. 

By William F. Gefhart, Pu.D. Puce, £2.0®. 

©« [90] Social Reform and the Reformation. . 

By Jacob Salwyn Schapiro, Ph.D. Price, $1.25. 

8 . [91] Responsibility for Crime. By Philip A. Parsons, Ph.D. Price, $ 1 . 50 . 

VOLUME XXXV, 1909. 568 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 

I. [98] The Conflict over the Judicial Powers In the United States to 1870. 

By Charles Grove Haines, Ph.D. Price, $ 1 . 50 . 
S. [93] A Study of tli© Population of Manhattanvllle. 

By Howard Brown Woolston, Ph.D. Price, #1.25. 
S. [94] * Divorce: A Study in Social Causation. 

By James P. Lichtenbhrgbr, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

VOLUME XXXVI, 1910. 542 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1. f95] * Reconstruction in Texas. By Charles William Ramsdell, Ph.D. Price, $ 2 . 50 . 
8 . [96j * The Transition in Virginia from Colony to Commonwealth. 

By Charles Ramsdell Lingley, Ph.D. Price, $ 1 . 50 . 

VOLUME XXXVII, 1910. 606 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 

1. [97] Standards of Reasonableness in Local Freight Discriminations. 

By John Maurice Clark, Ph.D. Price, £1.25. 
8 . [98] Legal Development in Colonial Massachusetts. 

By Charles J. Hilkey, Ph.D. Price, JS1.25. 
3. [99] * Social and Mental Traits of the Negro. 

By Howard W. Odum, Ph.D. Price, $e.oo. 

VOLUME XXXVIII, 1910. 463 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50. 

1. [lOO] The Public Domain and Democracy. 

By Robert Tudor Hill, Ph.D. Price, $*.00. 

2. [101 j Organismic Theories of the State. 

By Francis W. Coker, Ph.D. Price, gii.go. 


VOLUME XXXIX, 1910-1911. 651 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 

1. [103] The Making of the Balkan States. 

By William Smith Murray, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

2. [103] Political History of New York State during the Period of the Civil 

War, By Sidney David Brummer, Ph. D. Price, 3.00. 

VOLUME XL, 1911. 633 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 

1. [104] A Survey of Constitutional Development in China. 

By Hawkling L. Yen, Ph D. Price, fti.oo. 

2. [105] Ohio Politics during the Civil War Period. 

By George H. Porter, Ph.D. Price, $1.75. 
8 . [106] The Territorial Basis of Government under the State Constitutions. 

By Alfred Zantzinger Reed, Ph.D. Price,gi.75. 

VOLUME XLI, 1911. 514 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50; paper covers, $3.00. 

[107] New Jersey as a Royal Province. By Edgar Jacob Fisher, Ph. D. 


VOLUME XLn, 1911. 400 pp. Price, cloth, $3.00; paper covers, $2.50. 

[108] Attitude of American Courts In Labor Cases. 

By George Gorham Groat, Ph.D, 

VOLUME XLIII, 1911. 633 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 

l s [109] industrial Causes of Congestion of Population in New York City. 

By Edward Ewing Pratt, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. 
®. [ 110 ] Education and the Mores. By F. Stuart Chapin, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 

8 . till] The British Consuls in the Confederacy. 

By Milledgk L. Bonham, Jr., Ph.D. Price, $2.0*. 


VOLUMES XLIV aud XLV, 1911. 745 pp. 

Price for the two volumes, cloth, $6.00 ; paper covers, $5.00. 

[112 and 113] The Economic Principles of Confucius and his School. 

By Chen Huan-Chang, Ph.D. 

VOLUME XLVI, 1911-1912. 623 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 

1. [114] The Ricardian Socialists. By Esther Lowenthal, Ph D. Price.$i.oo 

3. [115] Ibrahim Pasha, Grand Vizier of Suleiman, the Magnificent. 

13 y Hester Donaldson Jenkins, Ph.D. Price, $i.oa. 


J. [116] ^Syndicalism in France 
4. [117] A Hoosier Village. 


By Louis Levine, Ph.D. Second edition, 1914. Price,.$1.50. 

By Newell Leroy Sims, Ph.B\ Price! $i.y> 


VOLUME XLVII, 1912. 544 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1. [118] The Politics of Michigan, 1865-1878, 

r . . By HarrihtteM. Djlla, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. 

2. [119] *The United States Beet Sugar Industry and the Tariff. 

B it Roy G. Blakhy, Ph.D. Price, $-2.00. 

VOLUME XLVIII, 1912. 493 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1 . [ 120 ] Isidoi* of Seville. By Ernest Brehaut, Ph. D. Price, $3.00, 

3. [121] Progress and Uniformity In Child-Tabor Legislation. 

By William Fielding Ogburn, Ph.D. Price, £1.75. 


VOLUME XLXX, 1912. 5S2 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 

I. [1231 British Radicalism 1791 - 1707 . By Walter Phelps Hall. Price,$2.oo. 

3. [138] A Comparative Study of the Law of Corporations. 

_ By Arthur K. Kuhn, Ph.D. Price, £1.50. 

8 . [124] The Negro at Work in New York City. 

By George E. Haynes, Ph.D. Price, £1.25. 

VOLUME L, 1911. 481 pp. Price, doth, $4.CQ. 


1 . [ 125 ] *Tlie Spirit of Chinese Philanthropy. By Yai Yue Tsu. Ph.D. Price,$x.oe. 
3 . [ 126 j *Tlie Alien in China. By Vi. Kyuin Wellington Koo, Ph.D. Price, $ 2 . 50. 


VOLUME LI, 1912. 4to. Atlas. Price: cloth, $1.50; paper covers, $1.00. 


1. [137] The Sale of LiQuor in the South. 


By Leonard S. Blakey, Ph.D. 


VOLUME Lil, 1912. 489 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1. [1281 ’"Provincial and Local Taxation in Canada. 

By Solomon Vineberc, Ph.D. Price, £1.50, 

3. [129] *The Distribution of Income. 

By Frank Hatch Streightoff, Ph.D. Price, £1.50. 
8 . [ 180 ] *The Finances of Vermont. By Frederick A. Wood, Ph.D. Price, £1.00. 


VOLUME LIII, 1913. 789 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50; paper, $4.00. 

[131] The Civil War and Reconstruction in Florida. By W. W. Davis, Ph. D. 

VOLUME LEV, 1913. 804 pp. Price, cloth. $4.50. 

1. [132] * Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States. 

By Arnold Johnson Lien, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 

2. [183] The Supreme Court and Unconstitutiona? Legislation. 

By Blaine Free Moore, Ph.D. Price, £1.00. 
S. [134] *Indian Slavery in Colonial Times within the Present Limits of the 
United States. By Almon Wheeler Laubkr, Ph.D. Price, $j.oo. 

VOLUME LV, 1913. 665 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 

1. [185] *A Political History of the State of New York. 

By Homer A. bTE3BiNS, Ph.D. Price, £4.00. 

2. [136] *The EarlyPersecutionsof the Christians. 

By Leon H. Canfield, Ph.D. Price, £1.50. 


VOLUME LYI, 1913. 408 pp. Pries, cloth, $3.50. 

3. [137] Speculation on the New York Stock Exchange, 1904-1907. 

By Algernon Ashbukner Osborne. Price, $1.50. 
2. ri38] The Policy of the United States towards Industrial Monopoly. 

By Oswald Whitman Knauth, Ph.D. Price, ,'fc 00. 


VOLUME L VII, 1914. S70 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 

1. [139] *Th© Civil Service of Great Britain. 

By Robert Moses, Ph.D. 

2 , [140] The Financial History of New York State. 

By Don C. Sowers. 


Price, £2.00. 
Price, £2.50. 


VOLUME LVIII, 1914. 884 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50; paper, $4.C0. 

[ 141 J Reconstruction in North Carolina. _ , __ „ 

1 * By J. G. ds RoulAac Hamilton, Ph.D. 

VOLUME LIX, 1914. 625 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 


Z. [142] The Development of Modern Turkey by means of its Press. 

L J By Ahmed Emin, Ph.D. Price, gr.oo. 

a. [143] The System of Taxation in China, 1614-1911. . 

L ' * liy bHAO-KwAN Chhn, Ph. D. Price, £i.oo. 

3. [144] The Currency Problem in China. By Wen Pin Wki, Ph.D. Price, £ 1 . 25 . 

4 . 1 145] *Jewish Immigration to the United States. . 

1 1 By Samuel Joseph, Ph.D. Price, £1.50. 


VOLUME LX. 1914. 516 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1. | 146] *Con 8 tantine the Great and Christianity. 

By Christopher Bush Coleman, Ph.O. Price, co 

2. [147] The Establishment of Christianity and the Proscription of Pa¬ 

ganism. By Maud Aline Huttman, Ph.D. Price, #,2.00. 

VOLUME LXI. 1914. 498 pp. Price, cloth, $4 00. 

1. [148] *The Rail way Conductors: A Study In Organized Labor. 

By Edwin Clyde Robbins. Price, fii.50 

2. [149] *Tlie Finances of the City of New York. 

By Yin-Ch’u Ma, Ph.D Piice, *2.50. 

VOLUME LXII. 1814. 414 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50. 

[ 150] The Journal of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reeoustiuiction. 
39th Congress, 1805 — 1807 . By Benjamin B. Kendrick, Ph.D. Price, $3.00. 

VOLUME LXIXI. 1914. 561pp. Price, cloth, $4 00. 

1. [151] Emile Durkheim’s Contributions to Sociological Theory. 

By Chakles Elmer Gehlke, Ph.l). Price, £1.50. 

2. [152] The Nationalization of Railways in Japan. 

By 'Ioshiharu Watarai, Ph.D. Price, $ 1 .25 

3. [153] Population: A Study in Malthusianism. 

By Warren S. Thompson, Ph.D. Price, $ 1.75. 

VOLUME LX1V. 1915. 646 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 

1 . [154] ^Reconstruction In Georgia. By C. Mildred Thompson, Ph.D. Price, 3 . 00 . 

2. [155! *The Review of American Colonial Legislation by the King in 

Council. By Elmer Beecher Russell, Ph.D. Price, $ 1 . 75 . 

VOLUME LXV. 1915. 524 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1 . [15G] *The Sovereign Council of New France 

By Raymond Du Bois Cahall, Ph.D. Price, $2 25 

2. [ 157] ♦Scientific Management (2nd. ed. 1918). 

By Horace B. Drury, Ph.D. Price, 5:2.00 

VOLUME LXVI. 1915. 655 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 

1. [158] ♦The Recognition Policy of the United States. 

By Julius Goebel, Jr., Ph.D. Price, fa.oo, 

2. [159] Railway Problems in China. By Chih Hsu, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

3. [ 160] ♦The Boxer Rebellion. By Paul H. Clements, Ph.D. Price, *2 00 . 

VOLUME I.XVII. 1916. 538 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1. (16 1 ] ♦Russian Sociology. By Julius F. Hecker, Ph.D. Price, < 2 . 50 . 

2. 1162] State Regulation of Railroads in the South. 

By Maxwell Ferguson, A. ju.., LL.B. Price, Jii.75. 

VOLUME LXVIII. 1916. 518 pp. Price, cloth, $4 50. 

[ 163 ] The Origins of the Islamic State. By Philip K. Hitti, Ph.D. Price, $4.00 


VOLUME LXIX. 1919. 489 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1. [164] Railway Monopoly and Rate Regulation. 

By Robert J. McFall, Ph.D. Price, $2 00. 

2. [165] The Butter Industry In the United States. 

By Edward Wiest, Ph D. Price, $2.00. 

VOLUME LXX. 1916. 540 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 

[166J Mohammedan Theories of Finance 

By Nicolas P. Aghnides, Ph.D. Price, #4.0©. 

VOLUME LXX1. 1916. 476 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 

1 . [167] The Commerce of Louisiana during the French Regime, 1699—1763. 

By N. M. Miller Surrey, Ph.D. Price, £3.$®. v 

VOLUME LXXII. 1916. 542 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 

1. r 16S] American Men of Letters: Their Nature and Nurture. 

r , By Edwin Leavmt Clarke, Ph.D. Price. Si.so 

2 . T 169 ] The Tariff Problem In China. By Chin Chu, Ph.D. Price Si so 

3. 1170] The Marketing of Perishable Food Products. 

By A. B. Adams, Ph.D Price, $1.50 





* 




























































' 

























































































- 





















































































































































I K I 





























: i 













































































































































































































































































































































































































































































' 






1 \ 























